Designing Happiness or Engendering Pleasure?

Don Norman's presentation for Ted Talks was shown in our design class last week. 

HAPPINESS OR PLEASURE?

I was intrigued by the notion of finding the happiness in design by observing human behavior in various circumstances:

- what increases happiness, 

- what is found to be pleasurable, 

- what is not, 

- and how those relationships work with (or against) each other. 

It's a vast concept, which is perhaps why, in the short time allotted, Norman doesn't really differentiate in his use of the terms happiness and pleasure. It appears that, at least for the sake of this speech, his definition(s) of pleasure and happiness are interchangeable, and yet we've known (ever since the Greek Philosophers) that happiness and pleasure are controversial bed-fellows. 

Think about his statement: "pleasant things work better." I would counter this with: "Better work is done with pleasant things." Yes, pleasant things bring happiness, but they are not the sum-total of what "makes" anyone happy. I've yet to find a situation where genuine happiness is summed up in pleasantries or tangible goods. 

I would propose that happiness comes from within; it is an inner balance, of which pleasure - [a more physical/sensual (as in, oriented to the senses) satisfaction] - is but a piece.

The user's perception and context ultimately define his sense of "pleasant". For example: If I’m a tightrope walker by trade, I’m not going to be terrified of walking a plank 300 feet in the air. My perception is not skewed and my behavior does not suffer because of my context - in this case, experience. Comprehension is all about context and behavior is almost entirely influenced by context, both of which ultimately condition us to seek that which we know, which we have known, and which we are comfortable with. 

THE IRONY

If we don’t take risks, however, we don’t live. There is (and this is in part what Norman addresses) a human NEED for risk, just as there is a human need for safety and comfort. Risk, fear, the unknown - all these sharpen the senses, fine-tune our perceptions and increase our drive for comfort and safety. This in turn heightens our awareness of our needs. Inner conflict helps us see our lives more sharply - as if in negative print - and engenders the ability to pursue the better, amend that which we see to be lacking - IN COMPARISON to that which we have gained from the risk/conflict/opposition and the fear/hesitance/inadequacy that it aroused. Our life context is enriched by risk.

Very roughly then, happiness can be found in keeping a running balance of risk and safety,  unknown and known, discomfort and comfort. Pleasure is only one aspect in this system of weights and balances. 

ALL THINGS IN MODERATION

Thanks to anxiety, moderation is very difficult for humans to achieve AND maintain. It's this same fear of the unknown that keeps us either chained to our work desk or addicted to thrill-seeking. Both are immoderate approaches to that life balance we all subconsciously seek.

Happiness is the number one human innate need. We all seek happiness, and we seek it from that which we perceive as good. If we do not see something to be good, or are not shown it in a way that enables us to perceive it as good, then we are not motivated to attain it. I believe that this is the ultimate point of Norman's talk: design presents an appeal to human perceptions of universal truths, thereby reminding one of a human need and instigating the impetus to attain that need, whether it be in an aesthetic or functional sense. Moreover, good design arrives at a solution that meets multiple needs at once (and presents this in an understandable way), effectively relieving the fear of the unknown WHILE eliminating the fear of the mundane, and striking *just* enough of a familiar contextual bell to create a balance between past associations and future promises of a better - and happier - life.

IN SUMMARY
 

And so, in the case of this video, I found it interesting to note that good design - in the context of one perceiving it as good - does indeed promote happiness, insofar as it this perception brings pleasure to the senses.

So, to recap, let us always consider:

1. the user's perception;

2. the user's context (--> and behavior thereby);

3. the user's needs (balanced lifestyle, more of X, less of Y, etc.)

4. the user's (in this case, consumer's) satisfaction or lack thereof within his own current context; and

5. the results of the above: a comprehensive understanding of the user, which can then play an active role in contributing to the happiness quotient of any design product.