This topic sticks out to me because I can relate due one of my classes that I am currently taking this semester deal with happiness and how an individual can lead a happy life. This Ted Talk in particular basis around getting our way as human beings and learning how to be happy without always getting exactly what we want. Dan Gilbet starts the talk by issuing a pop quiz to the audience to see what they would think could lead them to having a happier life, the options being winning the lottery or becoming paralyzed from the waist down. Luckily for me I knew the right answer to the question because we have studied this specifically in my philosophy course. The study shows that after a year of winning the lottery or losing your legs you will be equally happy with your life, excluding external factors that can cause sorrow or grief. Which may came as a shock to the world but me being a 19 year old expert on the subject, haha sarcasm is funny, knew exactly why. As humans we tend to think about the “now” rather than the future. Obviously if you had a choice of a couple million dollars or losing you legs i dont think I’d see anyone I know in a wheelchair. But the science behind it shows that we think we would be happier with the money because we think about how it would effect us immediately. You wouldnt stress about bills, you could send your children to good schools, or ever make sure everything is taken care of when you pass away. After a year of both being paralyzed or winning the lottery the reason you would be equally as happy is because it is what you are now used to and comfortable with.

While watching the Ted Talk, made me think about my views on stress itself. Growing up, I have always been taught that a little stress is good because it helps you stay on task. But as I aged I started to notice that stress is a real thing, not just “my mom didnt pack a juice box in my lunch so I will never finish my drawing” kind of stress, but more of the bill side of stress or the realization of failure which can be devastating. Kelly McGonigal goes on to discuss a study that found that the percentage of deaths is only directed with stress if you think stress is harmful, at this point in the video I was sure I was about to die because stress is the worst, but then she goes on to point out that if you see stress as more of a good thing or something that isnt good or bad it becomes less and less as a death threat.

Then she goes on to talk about an experiment in which her audience is participating in a stress induced test to give them the feel of social anxiety, something i struggle with on a daily basis because, lets be real, for the most part people suck.But as she dives deeper in the claims of stress being helpful i realize her point. A runners heart beats faster while running just as my heart pounds during one of Ians exams, the runners breathing becomes more rapid as the oxygen flows to the brain just as mine does whenever my brother tells me that he spent another 200 dollars on a stupid sports jersey, dont ask why that stresses me out or we will be here for a long time. So what if i treated my stress just like i treat my running. Well running is a bad example because lets face it i havent ran in years, but just exercising in general. I wouldnt stop working out because my heart started beating faster because that would be ridiculous. So i shouldnt freak out when my heart pounds when im given another paper that i fear i will fail, rather i should channel that feeling to excel in my work.

The whole study changed my views on stress in a way that makes me wish i wouldve seen it earlier. I tend to get stressed and collapse rather than try and thrive with the pressure. It sure does make me pumped to be stressed again try try out these methods in action.

I chose to do the IATs for my blog post because i felt it would be interesting to see how accurate a test like that could be and what i found was less than satisfying. On both tests that i tried I found my self choosing more answers that my right hand had to choose due to myself being right handed, though my results showed that I preferred Obama to George W. Bush, which is true, i couldn’t see the accuracy in the test due to my right hand being quicker on the draw than my left. I understand the test tries to limit factors such as hand dominance by switching sides, however i don’t see the effectiveness in that strategy because regardless of who or what was on each side, the right hand reigned supreme