Rethinking Wealth, Happiness, Socialization, and Meaning

Why does happiness feel so temporary, even after we achieve what we worked so hard for?

We celebrate new cars, new houses, promotions, and upgrades. For a moment, there is joy. Then the feeling fades, and the desire for the next thing emerges almost instinctively. This pattern is so common that it feels natural—but what if it isn’t? What if our understanding of happiness itself has been shaped, conditioned, and redirected over time?

Both academic research and philosophical thought suggest that what we often call “happiness” today may not be an innate human truth, but a learned association—one deeply rooted in early socialization.

How We Learned to Associate Happiness with Things

From a social science perspective, childhood plays a critical role in shaping how individuals understand reward and fulfilment. Psychologists note that children learn largely through reinforcement: behavior followed by reward is likely to be repeated. In many homes and schools, good performance is rewarded with tangible incentives—such as toys, gifts, privileges, or money. Over time, the child’s excitement becomes attached not to the achievement itself, but to the object received afterwards. Gradually, happiness is externalized.

Self-Determination Theory, developed by psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, distinguishes between intrinsic motivation (doing something because it is meaningful) and extrinsic motivation (doing something for an external reward). Research consistently shows that an overreliance on extrinsic rewards can weaken intrinsic motivation. As Deci observed:“When money is used as an external reward for some activity, the subjects lose intrinsic interest in the activity.” This early conditioning often follows us into adulthood. Achievement becomes a means of acquisition, and happiness becomes something external—measured, displayed, and compared.

From Being to Having: A Philosophical Warning

Philosophy has long cautioned against confusing possession with fulfilment. The German philosopher Erich Fromm captured this tension powerfully when he asked: “If I am what I have and if what I have is lost, who then am I?”

When identity and happiness are rooted in material ownership, they become fragile. Loss threatens not just comfort, but self-worth.

Similarly, Aristotle argued that true happiness (eudaimonia) is not pleasure or wealth, but flourishing through virtue and purpose. Wealth, he insisted, is merely a tool—useful, but never the goal.

“Happiness depends upon ourselves.”

Yet contemporary culture often reverses this logic, teaching—implicitly and explicitly—that happiness depends on what we can afford or display.

Why Satisfaction Rarely Lasts

Psychologists describe this pattern as hedonic adaptation—our tendency to return quickly to a baseline level of satisfaction. The new car becomes normal. The new house becomes routine. Desire re-emerges.

Centuries earlier, Blaise Pascal observed this restlessness:

“All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”

When happiness is externalized, stillness becomes uncomfortable. We keep moving, buying, and upgrading—not necessarily from greed, but from conditioning.

An Invitation to Reflect

This is not an argument against wealth or material comfort. Rather, it is a call to reconsider what we allow to define happiness. True and lasting fulfilment appears to emerge from personal growth, meaningful relationships, purpose, and alignment between values and action.

As Viktor Frankl wrote:

“Happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue… as the unintended side effect of one’s dedication to a cause greater than oneself.”

Perhaps the most important step is simply to pause and ask: What do I associate happiness with—and why? In doing so, we may rediscover a quieter, deeper form of fulfilment—one that no market fluctuation can take away.

Share your thoughts in the comment box below.