For at least thirty years or so I have always added to one of Socrates' dictums that, "the OVER-examined life isn't worth living either." Must have been during my therapy years. It appears Daniel Dennentt wrote something similar back in 1984. Seems I keep good company. But perhaps, like the Goldilocks lesson, somewhere between the unexamined and the over-examined there lies a region that helps promote well-being.
A short article in the February issue of Psychological Science posts an interesting study by Matthias Mehl. His work concerns the connection between deeper conversations versus more shallow or social conversations and well-being. He speculated that those individuals who had longer conversations about more meaningful subjects experienced greater well-being than those who were more isolated (duh) and those who gabbed an equal amount, but about more shallow topics. His correlational analysis showed those with a greater sense of well-being talked more about more meaningful things. He concluded:
"On the one hand, well-being may be causally antecedent to having substantive interactions; happy people may be 'social attractors' who facilitate deep social encounters. On the other hand, deep conversations may actually make people happier. Just as self-disclosure can instill a sense of intimacy in a relationship, deep conversations may instill a sense of meaning in the interaction partners. Therefore, our results raise the interesting possibility that happiness can be increased by facilitating substantive conversations."
Makes me wonder about our Facebook quest to post life's everyday moments, when a lunchtime conversation about the economy, life's purpose, the quality of our work, etc. might be more fulfilling. Sorta like the difference between a healthy meal and a lot of tasty junk food. And it could mean that using Facebook to alleviate isolation may be less helpful than calling a friend for a walk, talk, or meal.