I left the field of psychology twenty some years ago, not because I don’t enjoy digging into human nature and seeking answers to questions like “Why are we the way we are?” “What is the impact of nature vs. nurture?”, but because I find dedicating my life to designing lab experiments to “trick” people into behaviors that reveal their “true” nature too academic and unsatisfying to my pragmatic mind. In other words, just because I’m a connoisseur of sausages does not mean I have to become a sausage maker. So as I start doing more reading recently, I find myself once again naturally drawn to books written by psychologists. And to my astonishment, the field of psychology has advanced tremendously in the last twenty years, so much so I feel like I missed its golden age.

Two main reasons contributed to this leapfrog, at least in my view: 1) the development of functional magnetic resonance imaging or functional MRI (fMRI), which measures brain activity by detecting changes associated with blood flow that is correlated to neuronal activation.  Since its adoption in the early 1990s, psychologists have been able to do brain mapping and understand how behavior and cognition are related to brain activities, leading to a much better understanding of the interplay between our psychology and physiology. 2) the emergence of the internet and democratization of knowledge which led to the flourishing of interdisciplinary studies like neuropsych endocrinology and broke down the traditional silos of psychology, neuroscience, biology, chemistry, and medicine. I now come to realize these cross disciplinary breakthroughs have already cracked the code, or very close to it, to the ultimate question – how can we live a happy and meaningful life. It’s extraordinary, really!

In order to process this enormous amount of information so my little brain can retain it, I’ve synthesized my learning into my own proprietary happiness formula: H(Happiness)=G(Genetics) U E(Environment) U R(Response). Yes, it is a derivative of the popular happiness formula by positive psychologist Mark Seligman: H(Happiness)=S(Starting Point)+C(Circumstances)+V(Voluntary Control), but there are some important differences, which I shall explain later.

The first variable in the formula is Genetics, which is essentially the same concept as Seligment’s “S”. I just think calling it Genetics is more straight forward whereas “starting point” can be open to interpretations. The study of identical twins who are separated at birth but end up having very similar lives has shed light on the fact our genes do play a huge part in how we turn out. In fact, research has shown 50%-80% of the variance among people in their average levels of happiness can be explained by their genetics rather than their life experiences. The key, though, is “average”. Anyone who has studied statistics knows averages are deceiving. You really need to understand the distribution to make accurate deductions. In other words, even if our genes determine our happiness tendencies, within each unique genetic composition, there is a huge range. A person who falls in the upper range of the lower happiness gene can end up having a higher level of happiness than a person whose genetic happiness range is higher overall but he/she falls within the lower end of that range. So, do not despair if you are like me, who have not won the genetic lottery, because the goal here is to optimize our happiness level within the range that has been pre-determined.

As we move further right on the formula, we get to variables that are more in our control. Seligman uses “Circumstances” whereas I use “Environment”. Maybe I’m splitting hair here, but the dictionary defines “Circumstances” as “That which attends, or relates to, or in some way affects, a fact or event; an attendant thing or state of things” and “Environment” as “the surroundings of, and influences on, a particular item of interest”. To me, the term environment is broader to encompass two components: physical environment (where you live, what you eat, etc.) and mental environment (your relationship with others: family, significant others, people in your community), both of which we have some level of influence on, but not completely. Much of our physical environment is hard to change, at least in the short-term (e.g., climate change), but as an individual, you have the option of moving from a crowded city to more rural areas, as an example. And these factors, like how close we are to nature, how long is our commute to work, turn out to be significant predictors to our happiness level. And our mental environment, our relationships with others, plays an even more important role in impacting our happiness. Social psychologists have long shown people in happy marriages not only are emotionally happier, but live healthier and longer lives. So while we cannot choose the family we were born into, we can choose the family we grow into and the community we relate to (whether it’s your social circle, your online community, or the culture you live in) and making the right decision there is a huge accelerator on the road to happiness. It’s noteworthy that contrary to common beliefs, money, fame and social status, while part of the environment equation, are poor predictors of happiness. They matter at the low end, but as long as the basic material and human dignity needs are met, a middle class person is as likely to be happy or depressed as the rich and powerful.

Finally, the variable of Response, the idea that even though our genes are fixed and we have limited control over our environment, we have complete freedom to choose how we respond to the external environment and that is the unique evolutionary advantage for humans. This is where much of ancient philosophy and religion is focused on. Marcus Aurelius, a Roman emperor and a Stoic philosopher said, “The whole universe is change and life itself is but what you deem it”. Buddha, the Eastern philosopher came to a similar conclusion: “What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: our life is the creation of our mind.” There is a lot of wisdom in these observations from ancient sages, but modern psychology, the scientific study of the mind, has made colossal progress since then.

First, our response to the environment is not always voluntary or conscious. This is where I differ significantly from Seligman (he used “Voluntary Control” for his 3rd variable). Neuroscience has shown we have a hindbrain, a midbrain, a forebrain, and the limbic system that wraps around the brain (including hypothalamus, specialized to coordinate basic drives and motivations; hippocampus, specialized for memory; and the amygdala, specialized for emotional learning and responding). We share these brain components with animals. The only thing that is different about the human brain is the frontal cortex (or neocortex), a new layer of neural tissue developed and spread to surround the old limbic system. While parts of the frontal cortex are linked to more automated responses like moving a finger, most of it seems to be dedicated to cognitive tasks like thinking, planning and decision making. It takes up about 10% of the human brain mass and is the youngest member in the evolution of the brain. In other words, while we think highly of our cognitive capabilities as we expect to use our will or thoughts to control our behavior, that is hardly ever the case.

When we see, hear, touch, or taste something, that sensory information first heads to the thalamus, which acts as our brain's relay station. When faced with a threatening situation, the thalamus sends sensory information to both the amygdala and the neocortex. If the amygdala senses danger, it makes a split-second decision to initiate the fight-or-flight response before the neocortex has time to overrule it. This is what Jonathan Haidt, another social psychologist, calls “the rider and the elephant”. The animal part of our brain, the automatic and emotional responses, is like the elephant – it is big and almighty. While the rider always wants to exert control, the elephant will frequently go its own way. Have you experienced episodes when you are overcome with anger or fear or anxiety or when you get trapped into negative thought loops like “I’m awful. The world is gloomy. There is no hope” while the rational part of you knows you should not be feeling that, but you simply cannot control these feelings or ruminations? Those are times when the elephant (the animal brain) is not responding to the rider (the rational brain). And if the rider loses complete control of the elephant, mental disorders develop, such as PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) and the bipolar disorder.

But the good news is there are ways for the rider to exert control over the elephant. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is one of those techniques. Freud recognized the power of the unconscious mind when he invented psychoanalysis, where he fell short is he thought talk alone could be effective treatment to mental illness, that understanding the root cause of the problem will cure the disease. CBT takes a different approach – it recognizes the importance of conditioning in changing unhelpful cognitive distortions. Humans, it turns out, are just like Pavlov’s dog. If we want to reduce our automatic negative response to certain stimulus, we need to train our brain to associate that stimulus to positive emotions and we need to repeat that association millions of times until we no longer have to think about it. So if I want to practice yoga to get healthy, making New Year resolutions is not enough. I have to commit to doing the practice every day (every day is significantly better than a few times a week because you take the thinking out of it), and by doing that, I’m essentially building a habit so it becomes effortless for me to practice yoga and the negative response will arise only when I don’t do it. Meditation is another strategy. While exactly how meditation impacts our ability to moderate stressful response is unclear, there have been studies that show regulating your breathing has a calming effect and overtime it may change your brain structure.

Now that we understand involuntary responses are just as important, if not more important than our voluntary responses, I should point out that the other significant contribution of modern psychology to the thinking of Buddha and Marcus Aurelius is the fact that our cognition can have a significant impact on our environment. Buddha is, in a way, too pessimistic, believing we can only react to the environment in a one-way relationship. The “U” in my formula stands for interaction or unity, a two-way relationship. This is where I believe my formula has significant improvement over Seligman’s - if I may so shamelessly claim - the additive function is inadequate in depicting the relationship between the variables. As I already illustrated above, this two-way interaction can happen with the cognitive part of your brain and the animal part of your brain through conditioning. The same process happens between the mind and the environment. The best example of this is the well-known phenomenon of self-fulling prophecy, an individual's expectations about another person or entity or event eventually result in the other person or entity acting in ways that confirm the expectations.

Take me as an example. My career path has spanned four different industries: I studied psychology, but decided to quit academia; I pursued a film career, but decided to give it up for a more stable job and family life; I went into corporate America, first in healthcare industry and now in financial services. Now I could interpret this career path as a complete failure – There is no focus. I simply float around and fail. If I were to adopt that interpretation, I would most likely be depressed and reluctant to take any new opportunity – What’s the point? I will end up in failure again! My negativity will not only limit my own potential, it will also impact how other people react to me (e.g., “It’s no fun hanging out with Sally. She is such a downer”.) So I will end up with no future and no friends, which fits exactly the belief I had about myself – a complete failure.

Alternatively I could integrate these failed attempts and reframe them as evidence that I am a bold risk taker, I am undaunted by challenges, I have versatility and range. I can jump in any industry and quickly learn and adapt. Moreover, everything I learned, psychology, communication, business are all interconnected, making me a more well-rounded person. The failures only made me wiser and stronger. If I adopt this version of my life story and tell it over and over again, it will become part of my self-identity. People see me as a risk taker and an innovator and give me more opportunities, which I would embrace with confidence. Viola! I emerge as a winner!

This two-way relationship between the environment and our response to it is probably the most profound discovery of psychology. It paints such a hopeful picture of the human journey. It is the highly welcoming addition of the Yang from Western thinking to the Yin of the Eastern philosophy whose ideal state of imperturbability would require a complete shun away from the ups and downs of life. A happy and meaningful life to me is not a life of peace deprived of turbulences, but a life of full engagement with various forces in perfect harmony with each other.

When we achieve the harmony between the Genes and the Environment and the Response (both the elephant and the rider) is when we experience “flow”, a state where we are completely immersed in what we are doing. Psychologist Csíkszentmihályi describes it as “Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost.” No wonder happy people never think about happiness. They are in the “flow” of life, completely immersed in the joy of life itself.

This is not easy to achieve, of course, even when we have the perfect formula, because the formula is simply a broad generalization. Each individual is different. Our genes are different and our environments are largely different. It is up to each one of us to figure out what responses will work with our unique genes and environments. It takes hard work and even when you achieve perfect harmony, it is only temporary. Any changes in any variable, even slightly will require rebalancing. I don’t know if a supernatural God created us or not, but I can’t help but marvel at the genius of this design – it gives us the promise and power to achieve happiness but also the burden and responsibility to do the work. This is the closest to divinity I’ve ever felt.