I listened to your recent conversation with Arthur C. Brooks and found myself struggling with his core premise. His framing of happiness seems to reduce it to something like a biological or behavioural optimisation problem, which feels quite far from how psychotherapy traditionally and historically understands it.

I tried to find where he engages with psychotherapy as a discipline. The only reference I could locate was a passing mention of mindfulness-based CBT in a Free Press piece. But approaches like MCBT, while valuable, sit within a narrower, symptom-focused, behavioural tradition. They are not really representative of the broader psychotherapeutic field, which is less about “happiness” and more about understanding conflict, ambivalence, and the structure of the self.

That omission seems important. Sigmund Freud’s answer to the “happiness problem” is almost a rugpull: human beings are fundamentally conflicted, and any attempt to engineer sustained happiness runs up against unconscious forces, compromise formations, and the reality principle. Indeed, the goal of therapy to Freud, is to turn misery into “ordinary unhappiness”.

Later clinicians have developed this further. Jonathan Shedler, for example, has written compellingly about how psychodynamic therapy aims not at happiness per se, but at increasing the capacity to feel a full range of emotions without defensive distortion. I’m sure you’ve come across him – he’s absolutely brilliant.

It made me wonder whether there’s something slightly neurotic, even Bryan Johnson-esque, in trying to treat happiness as if it were a macronutrient to be optimised. That framing risks flattening the very thing it’s trying to measure.

PS. I liked that you asked him about the price of his book – and I respected his response too!

That is from Adam Goott.