The notion of "Happy People" was tossed around in the Robert-Lost-His-Mind posts as something ridiculous at best, dangerous at worst. One blogger equated "happy people" with "vacuous". The idea seems to be that "happy people" implies those who are oblivious to the realities of life, in a fantasy of their own creation, and without the ability to think critically. The science, however, suggests just the opposite.
One of the best passages is on happy people as a force for change:
[O]ne of the world's leading experts in the art of happiness is the Dalai Lama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. Just about everyone who hears him speak is struck by how, well, happy he is. How he can describe--with laughter--some of the most traumatizing events of his past. Talk about perspective...
But he is quite outspoken with his criticism of China. The thing is, he doesn't believe that criticism requires anger, or that being happy means you can't be a disruptive influence for good. On happiness, he has this to say:
"The fact that there is always a positive side to life is the one thing that gives me a lot of happiness. This world is not perfect. There are problems. But things like happiness and unhappiness are relative. Realizing this gives you hope."
Not an academic essay, but an interesting one. A few years ago, two of my professors (RC Dunnell and RJ Wenke) wrote a short article in American Antiquity, I believe (can't find it in JStor for some reason) decrying the increasingly hostile tone in many articles. Might have done some good because the rhetoric did, in my view, tone down somewhat after that. The blogosphere is replete with anger, especially among anonymous commenters, none of whom, happily comment or email to ArchaeoBlog. Well, maybe once, but seeing as I'm a big blogosphere star, it rolled right off my back.
(HT: Instapundit)