A few months ago, The NY Times Magazine printed an article about "happiness" including results from a study which attempted to get at a more nuanced definition of contentment. The study concluded, perhaps against intuition, that at the end of the day, people who described themselves as happy, optimistic (and were perceived by others to be so) were less happy than those describing themselves more cautiously.

Seems that "happy" folk are less happy actually, because their "optimistic" expectations are so often unfulfilled. Whereas the realist, or even the pessimist, is, at the end of the day, less dissatisfied, not only because their cautious expectations were more easily fulfilled but because the perceived "disaster on the horizon" was never really as bad as they imagined.

Chomsky has written about the unfortunate tendency to invert the definitions of "optimist" and "pessimist." Somehow we've managed to equate a "don't worry, be happy" attitude with optimism (actually cynical, at best) while the person who'll look directly at a problem, call it a problem and express a need to correct it (or else!) is considered the malcontent.

Rather than pinning a fake $1,000,000,000 bill to the ceiling, perhaps we should all wake up staring at pictures of poverty in America. Sure, it'll ruin your morning, but if it prompts you to make (or try to make) a differnce during the day, then you might find yourself sleeping better at night.

That's my "secret."

Chris Trakas

New York, NY