
The Hedonic Treadmill - shubhamjain
http://happierhuman.com/hedonic-treadmill/
======
anotherhacker
The author is flat out wrong. The Hedonic Treadmill has been disproven.
Moreover, the author seems to be conflating the concept of the treadmill, with
adaptation. The former denotes the subject returns to the original state. The
latter recognizes that while we become accustomed to new things, we still
improve in happiness.

The author is also misquoting, or misunderstanding, Kahneman. Kahneman isn't
talking at all about the treadmill. He's talking about what he called the
"Focusing Illusion"\-- a fancy way of saying "the grass is always greener on
the other side..."

Relevant links:

"Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill: Revising the Adaptation Theory of Well-Being"
[http://www.factorhappiness.at/downloads/quellen/S9_Diener.pd...](http://www.factorhappiness.at/downloads/quellen/S9_Diener.pdf)

Kahneman tried to explain the hedonic treadmill via with his own aspiration
treadmill. He claims that he not only failed, but the data were opposite to
his hypothesis.

[https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10056](https://www.edge.org/response-
detail/10056)

Kahneman's paper where that OP misquotes Kahneman from:

[http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/teaching/Schkade_Kahneman_...](http://psiexp.ss.uci.edu/research/teaching/Schkade_Kahneman_1998.pdf)

~~~
Simp
>'Kahneman tried to explain the hedonic treadmill via with his own aspiration
treadmill. He claims that he not only failed, but the data were opposite to
his hypothesis.'

[https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10056](https://www.edge.org/response-
detail/10056)

Uh... what that Edge article you are linking shows is that 'experienced
happiness' which he thought would be a better measurement of happiness than
life satisfaction is even more immune to your life circumstances:

>"This was the first of many such findings: income, marital status and
education all influence experienced happiness less than satisfaction, and we
could show that the difference is not a statistical artifact. "

This only strengthens the OP's opinion...

He does tell us at the end of the article that GDP correlates with the
happiness levels of countries. But that doesn't really detract from the OP's
reasoning. (Who knows if that's even causative, instability & war could cause
both GDP & happiness to drop.)

Even the study you are linking suggests revisions, and is far from
'disproving' the hedonic treadmill theory.

~~~
anotherhacker
I'd rather we not get bogged down in downstream minutia. Instead let's focus
on the fallacy in the OP's core argument:

The original Treadmill Theory has been discredited--or at least fallen out of
favor. Why? Because the original Treadmill theory is about people returning to
the same baseline level of happiness. That's why the originators called it a
treadmill - you don't go anywhere / change / improve / make progress etc.

That's why the "adaptation" analogy is preferred. After an initial rush of
either happiness or sadness, you do return to a baseline...but this baseline
is different that what it was before.

The reality, and summary, is this: nice things do make your life better. At
first there's a rush of excitement over your upgrade. When that initial rush
goes away, you backtrack a little bit, but still realize a life which is
better than what it used to be. The inverse is true for tragedy.

For whatever reason, instead of the succinct description I gave, the author
chose a long winded piece, added some charts with questional data, and slapped
on a link bait title.

<shrug>

~~~
coldtea
> _For whatever reason, instead of the succinct description I gave, the author
> chose a long winded piece, added some charts with questional data, and
> slapped on a link bait title._

That's because their post this way got much more illuminating than the
"succinct description" which does not even cover the same ground.

------
SonicSoul
_The hundreds of hours of dieting, going to the gym, and putting on make-up
(or flexing, for men) increase happiness by a colossal 7%._

nope nope nope

exercising does much more than make you look jacked at the club. It makes your
brain release endorphins for immediate mood improvement, and also improves
thinking, sleep, and overall well being. The happiest I've felt in my life is
when exercising regularly. Actually exercising and diet are probably _the
most_ influential on our chemistry which in turn influences mood and
happiness.

also not sure why all these things were lumped in together and how they could
possibly calculate the 7% increase considering there is such a wide range of
diets and exercise plans. Seems hyperbolic

~~~
and-can
And even then, is 7% supposed to be a little or a lot? They say "hundreds of
hours of dieting & exercising" but really that only affects an hour a day,
maybe? I'd say that if I could spend 1 hour a day and get a 7% gain in
happiness, it probably is worth it.

And perhaps there are other activities that require 1 hour that result in a 7%
increase. Say: reading, socializing, writing. Then you've got 4 hours a day
and get a 1.07^4 = 1.31 or 31% increase in happiness.

Isn't that GOOD? I'd say that's AWESOME.

~~~
SonicSoul
well the article seems to imply that 7% is low: _" by the colossal 7%"_

and there is this:

 _But that same survey found that those with a low level of education were 47%
more likely to be the happiest than those with a high level of education.13_

so low level of education makes almost 7x more impact than diet + exercising
combined. something is seriously wrong with this happiness calculus

~~~
daodedickinson
Check out The True Beleiver by Eric Hoffer or Deschooling Society by Ivan
Illich for some explanations for this long observed effect.

Schooling trained myself and my best friends to expect to be able to use what
we learned, even though there were no roles in society for us. We are national
merit finalists, calculus users, programmers, 99th percentile GRE scorers...
one friend is nearly homeless. Another bags groceries. The best off has a
programming job only because his father was higher up in the company. I spray
herbicides and pesticides and feed cattle and do whatever I am asked and more
at our family veterinary clinic and on our family farm. I am extremely lucky.
But I feel intensely guilty that I am not using anything I learned at
university. No one owes me anything. But I sacrificed and suffered so much for
academic success, debating championships, math team and programming victories,
and it has never paid me back with a livelihood and now I am emotionally and
energetically burnt out before ever landing an entry-level programming job. I
can do all the Cracking the Coding Interview questions. I've never ran into
anything in CS I couldn't understand. I'm just very emotionally fragile when
it comes to interviews due to being on the autism spectrum and feeling so
abjectified. If I had not been so successful in school I would not feel so
terribly guilty about my failure at life. I would like a romantic relationship
and a family. But I would feel guilty and to ashamed starting one without a
career to provide for at least private schooling or more likely homeschooling
for my kids. But I am unable to escape my social bankruptcy or move out of my
parent's basement. Life seems to complicated and I feel so far behind in non-
school skills I feel trapped. I feel I will never gain the prestige to feel
desirable enough to make friends much less a wife. I come up with software
ideas but I get so depressed at the likelihood of their failure that I feel
guilty working on them (and yet guilty not working on them). Education causes
higher expectations. Needing more people at university for social reasons has
made them so easy that they no longer discipline people enough for success.
More importantly, there simply aren't enough role slots people trained to
expect those roles. Please give me counsel if you can. I want a mentor or
someone to apprentice with so badly. My parents love me but they are very
dysfunctional. They have no friends either. I had a genius uncle who got top
marks in school, made all sorts of interesting gadgets, could solve a Rubik's
cube in seconds... he ended up a derelict and I am so worried I will end up
like him even though it might be a self-fulfilling fear... I think he is too.
He wanted to see a game I made but I've never gotten one polished to the point
I felt I could share it. My closest friends are all failing to launch, too, so
I have no role models. And I am down to three people from undergrad that I can
still talk to (through infrequent texting). I want to be able to spend real
time with someone who has things figured out about a bit so that my mirror
neurons might hurt me rather than harm me.

~~~
throwitaway_sam
Been there, done that, found a way out of it. PM me.

~~~
daodedickinson
I might if there was a PM option.

~~~
tacon
If you add a publicly viewable email address to your profile, then anyone that
might want to help you can contact you privately.

------
neogodless
"The material standard of living of a homeless person in modern-day Manhattan
is several dozens of times higher than the wealthiest of kings ten thousand
years ago."

Can someone explain to me what their definition of "standard of living" is in
this context?

I get that they might have access to cleaner water, but surely easy access to
food prepared for you and having a roof over your head in a snowstorm would
sound really appealing to someone without a home.

(Maybe I need to know what they use as the definition of "homeless"...)

~~~
erroneousfunk
10,000 years ago, we were living in a pre-agricultural society (or, perhaps,
only somewhat agricultural) Lots of wandering tribes, moving around following
the food, hunting with sharp rocks. Hunger and starvation would be common,
everything would be scarce, even for "kings" (which were really just tribal
leaders) Modern construction wasn't a thing, dwellings were constructed out of
sod, animal skins -- at the best, stacked rocks or mud bricks. As a king,
you'd still have to do back-breaking, dangerous work to maintain your position
and value in society.

There's no possibility of going to a homeless shelter to get out of the cold,
or sleeping in a well-constructed subway station to shield yourself from the
elements. If you were injured, you couldn't just walk into a nearby emergency
room with a team of nurses and doctors required to treat you. No soup kitchens
or food pantries or SNAP benefits. Even digging around in a city garbage can
or restaurant dumpster would yield an easy and delicious feast compared to
spending days tracking prey, killing it with a spear, cleaning and skinning
it, and cooking it with primitive tools over a fire. I would _much_ rather be
homeless today than in any sort of position 10,000 years ago.

~~~
Pils
I know the work of Jared Diamond has some problems, but as a counterpoint:

 _" While the case for the progressivist view seems overwhelming, it's hard to
prove. How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better
when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming? Until recently,
archaeologists had to resort to indirect tests, whose results (surprisingly)
failed to support the progressivist view. Here's one example of an indirect
test: Are twentieth century hunter-gatherers really worse off than farmers?
Scattered throughout the world, several dozen groups of so-called primitive
people, like the Kalahari bushmen, continue to support themselves that way. It
turns out that these people have plenty of leisure time, sleep a good deal,
and work less hard than their farming neighbors. For instance, the average
time devoted each week to obtaining food is only 12 to 19 hours for one group
of Bushmen, 14 hours or less for the Hadza nomads of Tanzania...While farmers
concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild
plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more
protein and a bettter balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's
average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140
calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended
daily allowance for people of their size. It's almost inconceivable that
Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way
hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the
potato famine of the 1840s."_[1]

Obviously this isn't representative of all hunter-gatherer societies, but a
>20 hour work week, high-protein 2000 calorie diet seems pretty nice. Of
course there are some other nice benefits of modernity but saying being
homeless in the US have a categorically higher quality of life is a stretch.

[1][http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html](http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html)

~~~
geodel
Thanks, I like this point of view. I guess something like ratio of modern day
comforts / modern day stress vs that ratio from past could be a useful
measure.

------
npsimons
The claim that losing weight won't make someone happier always surprises me.
To be sure, there are those who have deep seated issues that won't be solved
by losing weight, or for those who lose a little it won't make a big
difference, but I can state with confidence the _fact_ that I am happier and
my quality of life is better for having lost weight. Just getting better sleep
(and not needing a CPAP to do it) has made a world of difference for me.
Anecdotal, I know, but still.

~~~
metaphorm
I think that point needed to be deconstructed (by the author of the article)
in a lot more detail. It strikes me as both obviously true in many ways but
also obviously false in many other ways.

It is obviously true that losing weight won't make you feel any better about
being stuck in a shitty marriage, or a job you hate, or being estranged from
your parents, or any number of other things that can cause deep-seated
unhappiness.

It is also obviously true that losing weight will make you feel better
physically, and probably result in you being treated better by most of the
people you interact with face-to-face on a daily basis. Being treated better
by people definitely makes me feel happier.

On that note, I should really go to the gym more often.

~~~
daodedickinson
It's common, though, for people to feel guilty about not working out enough
even if they do it quite a bit (perhaps even more likely). That can lead to
less happiness. The endorphins are great... but I feel there is still a
hedonic treadmill effect there with that.

~~~
metaphorm
> It's common, though, for people to feel guilty about not working out enough
> even if they do it quite a bit

ha, I'll bet. almost anything where there's a notion of "leveling up" or some
kind of progress over time can lead to this treadmill feeling.

in my case though, I mean, I'm at like once or twice a month at the gym. I'm
pretty sure that's just objectively not enough, regardless of whatever
treadmill effect is going on there.

------
brianlweiner
Studies have cast doubt on whether Subjective Well-Being (SWB) levels actually
return to normal after significant life events. [1] [2]

So a core element of this post may not even be an actual phenomenon.

[1]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17469954](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17469954)
[2]
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289759/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289759/)

~~~
stevoski
> Studies have cast doubt on whether Subjective Well-Being (SWB) levels
> actually return to normal after significant life events.

I had heard (in a TED talk I think) that humans typically need only three
months or so to get back to "feeling normal" after a terrible life event.

Then I had my one terrible life event (widowed two days after marriage). Boy
was that TED talk wrong! The next few years were a desolate wasteland.

~~~
ctchocula
This is the TED talk you were talking about [0]. I'm sorry for your loss.

[0]:
[https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy?...](https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_asks_why_are_we_happy?language=en)

------
allisthemoist
_" The top 1% own 48% of global wealth, but even they aren’t happy. A survey
by Boston College of people with an average net worth of $78m found that they
too were assailed by anxiety, dissatisfaction and loneliness. Many of them
reported feeling financially insecure: to reach safe ground, they believed,
they would need, on average, about 25% more money. (And if they got it? They’d
doubtless need another 25%). One respondent said he wouldn’t get there until
he had $1bn in the bank."_ [0]

[0] [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/age-
of-...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/age-of-
loneliness-killing-us)

------
blakesterz
>>But sunshine after sunshine is correlated with nothing. >> Because if every
day was warm and sunny, you would get use to it.

That seems really really wrong. I see they cite studies but it just finally
got warm and sunny here after a long cold winter and it feels, well, happy :-)
Maybe, just maybe, if it was sunny all the time I'd get used to it. But some
days wouldn't be sunny, or I'd travel someplace with no sun, or people would
visit and say how awesome the weather is... I dunno, I'd be reminded all the
time how awesome it is. Or I'd complain because there's no rain and everything
is dry and dead and we're running out of water... damn hedonic treadmill.

~~~
shostack
Moved to the Peninsula from Chicago a couple years ago after becoming
increasingly fed up with and depressed by winter (despite trying to "medicate"
with a full-spectrum lamp).

Everyone I knew commented on how much happier I seemed. Sure some of that may
have been job-related, but it is amazing how much I notice it every day, even
a couple years later now.

The most noticeable thing for me in my day-to-day is that I no longer feel
guilty during nice days when I just want to chill inside and play a computer
game or something. In Chicago, since there were only a handful of truly
gorgeous days per year, I'd have immense guilt. The flip side is that I need
to motivate myself more to go outdoors, but because I can garden pretty much
year round, I have an enjoyable hobby that keeps me outside.

Sure, some days I get a bit tired of the sun (particularly when we have heat
waves), but the lack of humidity means I can usually hide in the shade and be
fine, which can't be said of Chicago in it's 100% humidity summers.

I'm not sure if I'll ever get to a point where I take it for granted because
it energizes me. However I do appreciate and look forward to a good rainy day
which we rarely get. I even sat outside on my deck in the rain at one point
because it felt so nice.

Honestly--I don't miss winter. If I want snow I'll drive to Tahoe. We get a
gorgeous extended fall, and those three are enough seasons for me.

I'm fortunate to commute on 280 (vs. 101) and driving home in the evening I
get to watch the hills go from a peaceful lush green in the winter/spring to a
glowing gold in the summer and fall as the sunset lights them up. It really is
something to watch the landscape change like that, and I certainly don't miss
the ugly stage of black slush and dangerous white out conditions I lived
through in Chicago.

~~~
rconti
Same, but from Seattle. Maybe it's just those of us who are broken, but I'm
immensely happier when it's sunny. I'll grant you, I find reasons to be grumpy
sometimes when it's nice out (too damn hot, no AC in the house, whatever), but
overall I'm vastly happier. Anyone who knows me would say the same. The thrill
of a really nice day is gone, but on balance my situation is improved. Not
only that, but after a decade or so, I've come to even appreciate the rare
grey or rainy day for what it reminds me of, rather than kicking off a cycle
of despair.

~~~
shostack
I think that's what it comes down to. Sure we might get used to the sunshine
and not have as great an emotional lift as when you first see it after months
of bleak gray, but the constant positive impact in the day-to-day is by far
and away the greater benefit.

That stress reduction and mood enhancement cascades into other aspects of your
life such as your sleep, relationships, overall stress level, etc.

I'd make the move again any day of the week. If anything I regret not moving
here sooner (largely due to housing prices).

------
joe_the_user
I've read the claim over the years that plastic surgery actually defies the
usual reasoning of the hedonic treadmill. Those having plastic surgery tend to
stay more-happy over an indefinite period of time.

This is the best survey I could google-up;

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hollywood-
phd/201403/do...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hollywood-
phd/201403/does-plastic-surgery-improve-emotional-well-being)

------
frostburg
There likely were no kings ten thousands years ago.

~~~
designium
Not kings but chieftains.

------
tpeo
I've got impression that the author has somehow conflated adaptation to
pleasure and monotonicity. Adaptation doesn't imply that people will always
want more stuff, monotonicity [0] does.

What adaptation implies is that all gains in subjective happiness are short-
term gains. Hence the "treadmill" image: though striving forward, people go
nowhere.

Maybe I've got the wrong impression.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotone_preferences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotone_preferences)

------
return0
It's not a treadmill, it's a ladder, even if it's a small step at a time. I
bet people will be less happy if they follow the advice and stop seeking more
happiness.

------
danharaj
Easier hypothesis: material wealth doesn't cause happiness

------
leecarraher
preaching to the choir. happiness is the derivative of circumstance thus
ultimately unachievable. Unless you can sustain exponential growth in your
current circumstance. Option two, hop on a sinusoid, and sometimes you will be
happy and sometimes you wont.

~~~
titzer
I don't agree. We don't really seem to notice the happiest times until later
reflection, and most of my own I find there was stasis and mostly, a certain
unconscious contentment. Once it becomes conscious it falls apart.

------
darawk
In addition to the other criticisms in the comments,

> The material standard of living of a homeless person in modern-day Manhattan
> is several dozens of times higher than the wealthiest of kings ten thousand
> years ago.

That statement is pretty clearly silly and false.

------
EricDeb
I'd be curious to see how chronic pain fits into the equation.. I developed a
fairly severe neuralgia and it dropped my quality of life about 3 or 4 points
on a 1-10 scale.

------
unit91
What strikes me about the article is that a gratitude journal is recommended
because of its effect, with no real discussion of the cause of the increased
happiness. What could possibly explain a strong, common desire regardless of
life-circumstances to thank an external source for the good things in our
lives? If we're merely products of genetic mutation, this seems like a very
bizarre psychological phenomenon.

~~~
ASpring
Reflecting on things that made you happy in the past increases your current
mood. I actually find that pretty intuitive.

------
ajcarpy2005
This is why esperiences almost always make us happier than stuff because it
usually has us more involved and it lasts longer.

------
karlb
The scientific research into happiness is summarised in the book “The How of
Happiness.”

And the whole book is precised in the following eight-minute rap:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyryRRYty4Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyryRRYty4Y)

(I find the visuals distracting and unhelpful.)

------
jonbarker
The Hedonic Treadmill may be a phenomenon but it can be rendered irrelevant to
your decision making process with a couple simple guiding principles which
many people actually do in practice (some don't but it is an
overgeneralization to say everyone does this so don't try to make more money).
Principle 1: All Raises Go to Savings (invest those in whatever suits your
risk tolerance). Principle 2: Begin With The End In Mind. The end of course is
the end of working life (free to do more work of course if you so choose
beyond a certain point). If you want to be financially independent at age 50
plus or minus 10 years you need a high net worth, so ensure that these savings
habits result in a high net worth (definitions of high net worth of course
vary). Kind of tired of hearing about the hedonic treadmill at this point.

------
maldusiecle
This is such a terrible argument, even by its own data.

For instance: "The good-looking are on average 7% happier than the bad-
looking."

...from which it draws the conclusion that being beautiful doesn't make much
of a difference. But 7% doesn't seem like a small difference at all. Spending
hundreds of hours for a 7% improvement doesn't seem like such a terrible deal
to me. Of course it's a bad deal if that's time you're taking from other
things that make you happy. But exercise, for instance, has the benefit of
improving your health and creating happiness in its own right.

Likewise the fact that 30% of unemployed feel 10% less happy _years_ after
becoming employed again. A 10% reduction in happiness doesn't seem minor at
all.

I guess if you have some absurd expectation, like some notion that a simple
intervention will make you twice as happy, you'll be disappointed by the
effects of all these various things. But a lot of these changes are pretty
substantial, and they're not even taking into account things that I would
expect to really affect happiness--professional accomplishment, one's love
life, etc. People are complicated, happiness is complicated, and of course no
single thing is going to instantly grant you contentment. That's no reason not
to work for small improvements; the small improvements add up.

And I think this kind of fatalism is really pernicious, akin to writing
arguments that suicide is a good idea or that heroin actually isn't very
dangerous. Most people are sensible enough to dismiss them, but others develop
this feeling of learned helplessness which really harms them. The authors
arguing this are always hypocrites; they know that they'd be unhappy living on
the street, that's why they keep going to work every day. But they're
perfectly happy to confuse and harm others with their disingenuous rhetoric.

~~~
hashkb
Aren't you ignoring the alternatives which the author suggests have
significantly better ROI?

~~~
maldusiecle
Yes, I consider that section of pop-psychology fluff literally below contempt
or discussion. But by all means, if it interests you, try it; on another page,
he promises that keeping a gratitude journal will grant you "spiritual
transcendence."

~~~
forgetsusername
So, you say:

"That's no reason not to work for small improvements; the small improvements
add up."

But dismiss the idea of using some sort of heuristic to prioritize said small
improvements? Because that's what I got out of this slightly verbose piece:
prioritize what will _actually_ make you happy, not what you _assume_ will
make you happy. Though, I agree, it's not particularly profound.

------
designium
Maybe we could model this into a Machine Learning automation process.

------
eggman
twenty kilograms of high-grade worthless, without devoting my life to writing
the anti-statement: "even a treadmill can benefit a person, it is the
perspective of the person on the treadmill that matters" \- you sweat, you
win, no sweat, you lose.

------
banku_brougham
>The material standard of living of a homeless person in modern-day Manhattan
is several dozens of times higher than the wealthiest of kings ten thousand
years ago.

When your analysis leads you to a conclusion that is obviously false, it is
time to reconsider some of your steps along the way.

~~~
banku_brougham
update: there seems to be disagreement, but no comments. My assertion is that
the manhattanite homeless the author references are in the running against
Eqyptian pharaohs, and I dispute the quoted claim as obviously false.

------
0xdeadbeefbabe
> how else would we have taken over the whole world?

No other reason than adaptability, eh? Give me a break.

------
virgil_disgr4ce
"I’m so glad I’m a man. Not only do I not have to give birth, I don’t have to
have periods , or change any as many diapers."

WTF?? Seriously? I mean, I assume he's trying to be funny, but really?

~~~
dota_fanatic
Didn't you know? Women's hands are more capable of changing diapers due to
physiologic differences. /s

No but really it'd be foolish for a man to set aside his endeavors and
aspirations and engage in childcare duties like changing diapers; women
actually have extra hours built into their day to take care of shit work so in
the end it's equal. /s

Seriously though, what a repulsive statement (the quote).

------
guard-of-terra
I doubt their premises.

For example, I've recently moved to another city which made me happier and the
effect did not wear off after four months and I don't think it will.

As another example, having a significant other versus being alone makes for
such a huge difference that it's not ever up to discussion.

Maybe if we're restricting our talk to meaningless status symbols (like the
mentioned Lexus), then it starts to make sense.

~~~
alashley
I've been thinking about this lately. The common meme is that people who say
"I'll be happy when I do $thing" should try to be happy in the moment rather
than looking towards their next goal(s).

I think we always need micro-goals to strive towards. A new job _can_ improve
your life, a new partner _can_ improve your life, and even when you find new
$thing, there are still goals to work toward there. Like being a better
employee or a better partner.

And as you've said, the effect of some changes is long-term at least until you
feel a need for growth/expansion again. Everything else outside of moving
forward in life is complacency.

