“I do not accept any absolute formulas for living. No preconceived code can see ahead to everything that can happen in a man’s life. As we live, we grow, and our beliefs change. They must change. So I think we should live with this constant discovery. We should be open to this adventure in heightened awareness of living. We should stake our whole existence on our willingness to explore and experience.”—Martin Buber (1878-1965)
What does it mean to live a good life? This question has been debated and written about by many philosophers, thinkers and novelists throughout the course of humanity. In the field of psychology, two main conceptualizations of the good life have predominated: A happy life (often referred to as “hedonic well-being”), full of stability, pleasure, enjoyment and positive emotions, and a meaningful life (often referred to as “eudaimonic well-being”), full of purpose, meaning, virtue, devotion, service and sacrifice. But what if these aren't the only options?
In recent years a long-neglected version of the good life has been receiving greater research attention: the psychologically rich life. The psychologically rich life is full of complex mental engagement; a wide range of intense and deep emotions; and diverse, novel, surprising and interesting experiences. Sometimes the experiences are pleasant, sometimes they are meaningful, and sometimes they are neither pleasant nor meaningful. They are rarely boring or monotonous, however.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
After all, both happy and meaningful lives can become monotonous and repetitive. A person with a steady job who is married with children may be generally satisfied with their life and find many aspects of it meaningful and still be bored out of their mind. And the psychologically rich life doesn't necessarily involve economic riches. Consider novelist Hermann Hesse's character Goldmund, who has no money but pursues the life of a wanderer and a free spirit.
Recent research on psychological richness has found that it is related to, but partially distinct from, both happy and meaningful lives. Psychological richness is much more strongly correlated with curiosity, openness to experience, and experiencing both positive and negative emotions more intensely. But is the psychologically rich life one that people actually want?
In a 2020 study, Shigehiro Oishi of the University of Chicago and his colleagues proposed that psychological richness is a neglected aspect of what people consider a good life and set out to assess how much people around the world actually desire such a life. The researchers asked people living in nine diverse countries the degree to which they value a psychologically rich life, a happy life and a meaningful life.
They found that many people's self-described ideal life involves psychological richness. When forced to choose a life, however, most chose a happy life (ranging from 49.7 to 69.9 percent) and a meaningful life (14.2 to 38.5 percent). Even so, a substantial minority of people still favored the psychologically rich life, ranging from 6.7 percent in Singapore to 16.8 percent in Germany.
These numbers went up when the desire for a psychologically rich life was measured indirectly. To fully understand what a person wishes their life might have been, it is important to explore what people wish they had avoided in their life. Therefore, Oishi and his colleagues asked people what they regret most in their life and whether undoing or reversing this regrettable life event would have made their life happier, more meaningful or psychologically richer.
They found that about 28 percent of Americans said that undoing the regrettable event would have made their life psychologically richer. For instance, one person wrote that they regretted “not going to a four-year college to get a degree. I feel like I missed out on some interesting experiences.” In Korea, the percentage was even higher, with 35 percent of participants saying that undoing the regrettable event would have made their life psychologically richer compared with happier (27.6 percent) or more meaningful (37.4 percent).
These findings suggest that although most people do strive to be happy and have meaning and purpose in their life, a sizable number of people are content merely living a psychologically rich existence. Indeed, other research suggests that for a lot of people, the intensity of the experience matters more than merely how “positive” or “negative” it was. As Oishi and his colleagues conclude, “we believe that taking the psychologically rich life seriously will deepen, broaden, and, yes, enrichen our understanding of well-being.”
At the end of the day, there is no one singularly acceptable path to the good life. You have to find a path that works best for you.
As philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche put it, “no one can build you the bridge on which you, and only you, must cross the river of life. There may be countless trails and bridges and demigods who would gladly carry you across; but only at the price of pawning and forgoing yourself. There is one path in the world that none can walk but you. Where does it lead? Don't ask, walk!”
Nietzsche also noted, though, that it is “an agonizing, hazardous undertaking thus to dig into oneself, to climb down roughly and directly into the tunnels of one's being.”
If you dig deep into the tunnels of your being and realize that the best path for you is to live a life full of rich and complex ideas, emotions and experiences (which sometimes can be negative but ultimately conducive to growth), then I hope this research shows you that this is not necessarily a lonely path. There are plenty of people in the world who crave the psychologically rich life and who even prioritize novelty, variety, complexity, intensity, depth and surprise in their daily life.
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.