Mark: A study of thousands of Americans found that people earning over $100,000 are no happier than those earning less than $25,000. In fact, the peak happiness income is somewhere in the middle. It seems the finish line for 'success' might be a mirage. Michelle: Hold on. Are you telling me all that striving for a six-figure salary, the promotions, the hustle culture... it's basically pointless for our actual happiness? That feels... deeply wrong. Mark: It feels wrong because it cuts against one of the most powerful stories we're told. And that's exactly what we're diving into today with the book Happy Ever After: Escaping the Myth of the Perfect Life by Paul Dolan. Michelle: Paul Dolan. I feel like I’ve heard that name. Mark: You probably have. And he is the perfect person to write this. He's a leading behavioral scientist at the London School of Economics who actually advised the UK government's famous 'nudge unit.' He's not just a philosopher; he's in the trenches of applying this science to real life. Michelle: Okay, so he's got the credentials. What's his big idea? What is this "myth of the perfect life"? Mark: He argues that our lives are governed by powerful social stories he calls "narrative traps." These are the blueprints for a good life that society gives us: be wealthy, be successful, get married, have kids. Michelle: Right, the checklist. The one my relatives ask about at every holiday gathering. Mark: Exactly. And a narrative becomes a trap when we follow it even when it makes us, and the people around us, miserable. We get so caught up in the story that we forget to check if we're actually happy. Michelle: That’s a fantastic way to put it. A narrative trap. I feel like I see them everywhere now that you've given it a name. Where do we start?

Mark: Let's start with the first big meta-narrative Dolan calls "Reaching." This is the obsession with getting more: more money, more success, more education. He tells this brilliant story about a close friend of his. Michelle: I’m listening. Mark: She worked at a super prestigious media company, let's call it 'MediaLand.' He meets her for dinner, and for two hours, she just complains. Her boss is a nightmare, her colleagues are snakes, the commute is soul-crushing. She is profoundly, deeply miserable in her day-to-day experience. Michelle: Oh, I know this person. We all know this person. Their job is their entire personality, and their entire personality is complaining about their job. Mark: Precisely. But then, at the end of the night, without a hint of irony, she sighs contentedly and says, "But I just love working at MediaLand." Michelle: Wow. That’s a disconnect. She didn't love the work, she loved the narrative. The status of being able to say she worked there. Mark: That's the trap. The story of success was more important than the experience of happiness. A job that makes us miserable is not a good job, but we can convince ourselves it is if it has high status. Michelle: Okay, but what about the money part of 'Reaching'? Surely having more money makes life easier and therefore happier. You can't tell me a lottery winner isn't happy. Mark: Ah, but this is where it gets really interesting. Dolan shares this incredible real-world study about lottery winners in Canada. You'd think the winner is the only one affected, right? Michelle: Right. They get a new car, a bigger house. Good for them. Mark: The researchers looked at the neighbors of the lottery winners. And they found something astonishing. In the two years after a big lottery win, the neighbors of the winner were significantly more likely to file for bankruptcy. Michelle: What? How? Mark: Social comparison. The winner buys a new boat. The neighbor, feeling the pressure to keep up, takes out a loan for a slightly smaller boat. The winner gets a fancy new car; the neighbor leases one they can't afford. It's conspicuous consumption driven by envy. A 1% increase in the size of the lottery win was associated with a 0.04% increase in bankruptcies among the neighbors. The winner's good fortune literally created misery next door. Michelle: That is absolutely wild. It's not about your own life, it's about how your life looks compared to the person over the fence. But that's extreme wealth. For most of us, isn't it just about getting out of poverty? Mark: Absolutely. Dolan is very clear: poverty causes misery. Having enough money to meet your basic needs and not worry constantly is hugely important for well-being. But he advocates for a "just enough" approach. Michelle: Like, good enough? Not perfect? Mark: Exactly. It's a concept from economics called 'satisficing' versus 'maximizing.' A maximizer spends three days researching the absolute best, most perfect toaster. A satisficer finds a toaster that meets their criteria—it toasts bread, it's in budget—and buys it, then moves on with their life. The satisficer is almost always happier. Michelle: And that applies to income? Mark: It does. The data from the American Time Use Survey is stunning. It shows that happiness and purpose are highest for people earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year. After that, it flatlines and even starts to dip. Those earning over $100,000 are no happier than those with incomes under $25,000. Michelle: That data point you opened with. It’s real. So the goal isn't to be rich. The goal is to have enough. Enough to be safe and comfortable, but not so much that you're trapped in the 'Reaching' game. Mark: You've got it. You're escaping the narrative that more is always better.

Michelle: It's fascinating how these 'Reaching' narratives about our careers are so powerful. But Dolan doesn't stop there, does he? He goes after the most personal narrative of all: 'happily ever after.' Mark: He does. He calls this the "Related" meta-narrative. This is the story that says a happy life requires a spouse, monogamy, and children. It's the fairytale ending we've been fed since birth. Michelle: And he's saying... that's a trap too? This is where I know the book got a bit controversial with readers. Mark: It did, because it pokes at our most deeply held beliefs. He starts with the modern dating world. We think more choice is better, right? Dating apps give us a seemingly infinite pool of potential partners. Michelle: Which sounds great in theory. Mark: But in practice, it can be paralyzing. He uses this fantastic experiment from Harvard to explain it. Students in a photography course got to choose one of their best photos to keep. One group was told their choice was final. The other group was told they could swap it for another one later. Michelle: Okay, I’d want the option to swap. Keep my options open. Mark: Everyone thinks that! But the students who had the irreversible choice—the ones who had to commit—were significantly happier with their photo. The group with the option to swap kept wondering if they'd made the right choice. They were less satisfied. Michelle: That is so true for dating! It's the paradox of choice. You're on a date with a perfectly nice person, but in the back of your mind, you're thinking, 'Is there someone better, funnier, taller, just one swipe away?' It creates this constant, low-level anxiety. Mark: It's the commodification of people. We're shopping for partners like we shop for shoes. And this pressure to find the 'perfect' one leads to another narrative trap: the big, expensive wedding. Michelle: The ultimate public declaration of success in the 'Related' game. Mark: You'd think a bigger wedding means a stronger commitment. The data says the exact opposite. A study found that, compared to a wedding costing around $10,000, couples who spent over $20,000 were twice as likely to get divorced. Michelle: Twice as likely? That's insane. So the big wedding is more about performing for the narrative than about the actual relationship. Mark: It seems so. It's about the story. And the book received some mixed reviews for this kind of analysis. Some critics and readers found this utilitarian take on love and marriage a bit cold, questioning if you can really measure relationships with this kind of data. Michelle: I can see that. It feels a bit unromantic. So what's the alternative? Is Dolan saying we should all be single and avoid weddings? Mark: Not at all. This is the key. He's not anti-marriage or anti-monogamy. He's anti-narrative trap. He says breaking free can mean choosing to marry, or be monogamous, or have kids—but only because that decision genuinely suits you and brings you happiness, not because society's story dictates that you should. It’s about making the choice conscious and authentic. Michelle: So it’s about owning your story instead of just following a pre-written script. Mark: Exactly. Whether it's about your career, your money, or your relationships.

Michelle: So whether it's our career or our love life, the real enemy isn't failure, it's being trapped in a story of success that wasn't written for us. It’s about chasing a version of 'happy' that society sold us, without ever stopping to ask if it's making us, you know, actually happy. Mark: Exactly. And Dolan's final, most profound point ties it all together. He challenges the "Responsible" meta-narrative, particularly the idea of free will, or what he calls 'volition'. He argues we have far less control than we think. Our genetics, our environment, pure luck... they steer the ship. Michelle: That sounds a bit bleak. What does he say free will is, then? Mark: He has this incredible line. He says free will is left to "rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic." The big forces are already in motion. He shares his own story of being criticized for 'playing the working-class hero' because he, a professor at a top university, still swears and has a working-class accent. The narrative says he should have changed to fit the mold. Michelle: Wow. So if we accept that—that we're not fully in control—it becomes less about judging others for their choices, or their 'failures' to follow the script, and more about... what? Just reducing misery? Mark: Precisely. That's his ultimate metric. His advice is to focus on impact, not intent. Don't worry if someone's charity is 'purely' altruistic; celebrate that they're doing good. And for ourselves, he says we should stop 'sweating the big stuff'—the grand narratives—and focus on the small, daily experiences that actually bring us pleasure and purpose. Michelle: I love that. It’s a shift from a life that looks good on paper to one that feels good in practice. It’s about designing a life based on your own personal feedback loop of happiness. Mark: And being more tolerant of how others design theirs. He hopes we can move from a culture of 'more please' to one of 'just enough,' and from judgment to acceptance. Michelle: That feels like a much more authentic way to live. I'd love to know what narrative traps our listeners feel caught in. Let us know on our socials what story you're trying to escape. Mark: This is Aibrary, signing off.