The Michael Hecht-Rationally Speaking affair

by Massimo Pigliucci & Julia Galef

As many of our readers and podcast listeners have now learned, author, colleague and friend Jennifer Michael Hecht has started an internet campaign on June 22nd using social media to accuse us of plagiarism. This was done without contacting us first, despite a long association of both Rationally Speaking and NYC Skeptics with Jennifer, an association which has included a full episode of the podcast featuring her as a guest, as well as her recent appearance at the April 2011 Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism.

Jennifer apparently believes that we in some form stole her ideas, as presented in her 2008 book, The Happiness Myth, and is so upset about it that she has even contacted Julia’s family about the matter. We have immediately called and emailed Jennifer directly to ask what was going on — initially under the not entirely implausible hypothesis that someone had stolen her online identity and used it for nefarious purposes (we have received in the past and continue to receive death threats and plenty of insulting or smearing emails, so this isn’t as far fetched as it may sound). Instead, Jennifer confirmed that she was indeed upset with us.

We then asked her exactly what the problem was, as we were absolutely sure that we hadn’t even opened her book in months and certainly couldn’t have plagiarized anything from it. At this point the story becomes confusing, as Jennifer seems to be accusing us of different things at different times, including: that we stole verbatim from her book; that we covered “the same topics in the same order”; that we adopted her “tapestry” when talking about happiness; that we stole from the previous podcast we did with her; or that we stole from a conversation she had with us at NECSS.

We protested our innocence, emphasizing that the only areas of overlap between her book and our podcast concern a few very common topics about happiness (its treatment by Aristotle and Epicurus, so-called happiness “set points,” and the question of whether wealth is connected to happiness). These, we pointed out, are so fundamental to a discussion of happiness that they are practically mandatory in any treatment of it. It would be odd indeed to have a show on happiness and not mention the research on set points, or on income and happiness — sort of like talking about evolution without mentioning Darwin and natural selection. We also pointed out that said topics make up only a small fraction of those we discussed in the podcast, and of her book for that matter. These ideas are certainly not Jennifer’s original contributions (of which there are many genuine examples in her book); rather, they have been widely discussed in the media, academic journals, and in many popular press books, such as Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Todd Gilbert, Authentic Happiness by Martin E. P. Seligman, and The Happiness Hypothesis, by Jonathan Haidt.

It is important to understand that a podcast (as opposed to, say, a book, or a technical paper) is a summary for a lay audience, and is not in any way a scholarly pursuit towards defining new ideas on the topic. This means that it isn't even clear how the very concept of plagiarism could possibly apply in this context. Nevertheless, we asked Jennifer — multiple times — to provide us with a detailed list of her charges, such as at what points in the podcast we used exactly what from her book. We thought that was fair, considering that she was the one making the potentially damaging charges. She refused, stating that we should do that kind of home work on our own. So we did. Below is a table that Julia and I put together, with a minute-by-minute summary and commentary of the entire podcast.

We maintain that the following points ought to be clear to anyone who has both read Jennifer’s book and has listened to our podcast:

a) There is nothing in the podcast that was lifted verbatim or close to from her book. 

b) In no sensible way does the podcast follow the outline of the book. 

c) Those ideas that do overlap with Jennifer’s are common knowledge in the field. 

d) Several of the sources we use appeared subsequently to Jennifer’s book (Amazon says it was released on 5 February 2008, so none of her sources could possibly be more recent than 2007, while almost all of ours are).

We deeply regret this incident, particularly the manner in which Jennifer has chosen to exploit social networks to smear our reputation before even attempting to contact us and hear our side of the story. We stand by the content and form of our podcast, which we think is intrinsically interesting (while certainly not groundbreaking!). We also still profess admiration for Jennifer’s work, not just about happiness, but in her other books as well, and hope that this ugly incident can soon be put behind us so that we can all get back to what we enjoy doing: writing and talking about interesting topics for an intelligent and informed audience.

-----

Annotated transcripts of Rationally Speaking podcast on “The Science and Philosophy of Happiness,” released on 19 June 2011:

TIME	TOPIC	SOURCE
0:00	(Intro)
1:28	Massimo explains that the ancient Greek philosophers treated the question of happiness as an ethical question; Aristotle said that the life of “flourishing” (eudaimonia) isn’t just the life that you want to live, it’s the life you ought to live. And Plato connected the idea of that life to the idea of a flourishing society.	This is common knowledge – you’d find it in any intro to ancient Greek philosophy.
4:27	Massimo explains concept of “akrasia,” or weakness of the will, which keeps us from living the flourishing life.	This is common knowledge.
5:30	Julia introduces the field of “positive psychology” – recent trend in the field of psychology that focuses not on fixing negatives, but on getting more positives.	This is common knowledge – Julia just explained what you’ll find under “positive psychology” on Wikipedia.
6:35	Julia mentions the spate of books about happiness that have come out recently (including Jennifer’s The Happiness Myth), and Massimo notes that Jennifer was fairly skeptical of happiness research.	This obviously doesn’t need a source.
7:05	Julia explains one striking finding from happiness studies: the idea that we have happiness “set points” that we return to.	Widely discussed, but Julia first encountered it in Dan Gilbert’s TED Talk.
8:00	Massimo talks about correlational studies that try to explain the variation in happiness between people: about 50 percent apparently is due to the set point, 10 percent is the result of circumstances that people find themselves in. And 40 percent of the variance in happiness is the result of activities people choose to engage in.	Common knowledge – see this article from Psychology Today, for example. Massimo’s original source (found through Google Scholar) was: “I am so happy cause today I found my friend: friendship and personality as predictors of happiness” by Meliksah Demir and Lesley A. Weitekamp. Journal of Happiness Studies, volume 8, pp. 181-211, 2007. This fact does not seem to be mentioned in Jennifer’s book.
11:20	Julia makes the point that even though a lot of events that happen to you might not budge your happiness from your set point, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some things you could do, if you knew what they were, to budge your happiness permanently.	Julia got this idea from this paper: Pursuing Happiness: The Architecture of Sustainable Change.
11:47	Julia talks about some findings from positive psychology that have been empirically shown to increase happiness: - thinking about what you’re grateful for - seeking out and forgiving people - pursuing meaningful personal goals - reflecting on your strengths and using those regularly	Julia is describing research from this paper, which Massimo emailed her before the podcast to look over: Positive Psychology Progress: Empirical Validation of Interventions.
12:50	Massimo says that you can’t be happy if you just keep pursuing pleasure, because of the hedonic treadmill – you get a short term boost but then go back to your earlier happiness level.	The concept of the “hedonic treadmill” is common knowledge. For instance, it is discussed in the above mentioned paper by Demir and Weitekamp.
13:58	Massimo brings up Epicurus, who said that friendship is a crucial component of being happy (and Facebook friends don’t count!). Julia argues that Facebook friends can increase your happiness, even strangers; Massimo disagrees.	Our debate about Fb was original; Epicurus’ endorsement of friendship as being crucial is common knowledge, discoverable even on Wikipedia.
17:00	Massimo discusses Christakis & Fowler’s research showing that human behavioral traits spread through social networks, similarly to an infectious disease.	Source is Christakis & Fowler. See for instance this commentary: “Biology, politics, and the emerging science of human nature” by James H. Fowler and Darren Schreiber. Science, volume 322, pp. 912-914, 2008.
19:00	Julia points out that cultural attitudes about happiness can bias people’s self-reports.	Julia first encountered this idea in a blog post by Will Wilkinson.
19:58	Massimo talks about ways around the measurement problem: don’t use the word ‘happiness’ (just ask person to rate the quality of their life).	Common knowledge in social science research. Again, see Demir and Weitekamp.
20:35	Julia brings up the “squishing effect,” in which you can’t be sure two people who rate their happiness a 7 out of 10, e.g., are actually experiencing the same level of happiness.	Julia first encountered this idea in Dan Gilbert’s book “Stumbling on Happiness.”
21:00	Massimo says you can get around that by measuring physiological symptoms like stress, which are highly correlated with self reports of happiness.	This is common knowledge – for instance, it’s discussed on the Wikipedia page for “Positive Psychology.” Massimo’s specific source was: “International happiness” by David G. Blanchflower and Andrew J. Oswald. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper n. 16668, 2011.
21:48	Julia brings up a study by Dan Haybron which showed that people in a noisy office were more stressed, physiologically, than people in a quiet office – and yet they self-reported as being equally stressed. So maybe we don’t have conscious access to our happiness level?	This is the study: Do We Know How Happy We Are? On Some Limits of Affective Introspection and Recall. Julia found it because it was cited in an article by Will Wilkinson.
23:10	Massimo points out that the Greek philosophers weren’t saying there’s only one way to lead a flourishing life. There are many paths to flourishing, but there are also many wrong paths.	This is common knowledge in philosophy.
24:05	Massimo discusses the connection between money and happiness: GDP has risen steadily in the US but self reported happiness hasn’t. One study found that every extra $1,000 corresponds on average to an increase of .002 on a social science index of happiness from 0 to 1. So it takes a lot of money to make much of a difference in self reported happiness. Noting that GDP and happiness are different, the UN has invented a “Human Development Index” including things like health and education, which make for good predictor of happiness.	The data looking for a pattern between money (both individually and nationwide) and happiness have been very widely discussed, both by economists and in the popular media. Here’s a book about it called The Progress Paradox. Massimo’s original source was the Blanchflower and Oswald paper cited above.
27:35	Julia expresses skepticism that people’s self-reported happiness is actually a good measure of how they feel. Maybe people report being happy if they believe that their life circumstances are supposed to make them happy.	Julia thought of this point herself.
28:52	Massimo brings up data on happiness and having children. Parents’ self-reported life satisfaction is higher, but their experiential happiness (measured on a moment-to-moment basis) is lower. We argue about whether it makes sense to have high life satisfaction but low experiential happiness.	The findings about happiness and children have been very widely discussed in the media in the last two years. Julia first learned about them in this New York magazine article, “Why Parents Hate Parenting.” Massimo’s source was the Blachflower and Oswald paper.
31:53	Massimo talks about overall trends in happiness: women tend to be happier, wealthier and healthier and more educated people tend to be happier; married people are happier; whites are happier; people who exercise and eat fruit are happier.	These are facts from widely available surveys of happiness. Details in the Blanchflower and Oswald paper.
34:54	Massimo talks about cross-national happiness – Western Europe is quite happy, whereas most unhappy places in the world come from Eastern bloc countries. Factors correlated with national levels of happiness: Low unemployment and inflation, low inequality, strong welfare states, high public spending and democratic participation, etc.	Sources and references in the Blanchflower and Oswald paper.
37:25	Massimo talks about happiness over the course of a lifetime – it’s a U-shaped function. It’s shifted between the US and Europe – most unhappy age in US is 40, whereas in Europe it’s 54. Julia theorizes that it might have to do with the American obsession with youth and beauty.	Sources and references in the Blanchflower and Oswald paper.
38:57	Julia brings up a question from a blog reader who asks about our reaction to the views of Pascal Brueckner, a French philosopher who says the pressure to be happy is making us less happy. Julia quotes a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon.	The source of this topic was the reader who asked us the question.
40:50	Massimo talks about a study showing that Americans tend to be optimistic about the future, but discontent about current situation, whereas Europeans are content now but not optimistic.	Massimo was referring (from memory) to this article.
41:26	Julia says there is some truth to the idea that focusing on happiness is misguided, so it seems that actively pursuing happiness is not the best way to achieve it; she quotes John Stuart Mill.	Julia originally got this idea from Bertrand Russell, in his book “The Conquest of Happiness.”
42:15	(End)