Unknown Author
4 min
Modern psychology distinguishes between two primary modes of well-being: hedonia (pleasure, positive affect, and life satisfaction) and eudaimonia (meaning, self-realization, and virtue). While ancient philosophy viewed these as complementary, contemporary life has increasingly pitted them against one another. The hedonic treadmill—the tendency for humans to quickly adapt to improved circumstances and return to a baseline level of satisfaction—has been weaponized by consumer culture. By constantly raising expectations, the economy ensures that the pursuit of happiness remains a perpetual, unfulfilling chase.
Daniel Kahneman’s distinction between the experiencing self (who lives in the moment) and the remembering self (who narrates and evaluates life) reveals a critical flaw in modern living. Digital platforms and consumer experiences are engineered for the remembering self—optimizing for the photographable peak or the narrative beat—often at the direct expense of the experiencing self. This focus on memory over presence, combined with the constant upward social comparison facilitated by social media, creates a state of relative deprivation where the present moment feels perpetually insufficient.
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) posits that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are universal psychological needs. Modern digital environments systematically undermine these by replacing genuine autonomy with algorithmic curation, obscuring individual competence behind the highlight reels of others, and substituting reciprocal relationships with performative, parasocial interactions. Furthermore, the modern 'meaning crisis' is not a loss of belief, but a loss of the 'ecologies of practice'—the rituals and communal structures—that historically generated meaning.
Flow, the state of complete absorption in an activity, serves as a bridge between hedonia and eudaimonia. However, modern life—characterized by attention fragmentation, poor feedback loops, and the instrumentalization of hobbies into side-hustles—makes flow increasingly difficult to achieve. The wellness-industrial complex further complicates this by commodifying eudaimonic vocabulary, selling 'mindfulness' and 'authenticity' as products to fix the very anxieties the system creates. Reclaiming well-being requires recognizing these structural forces and engaging in small, non-commodified acts of consecration that prioritize genuine connection and intrinsic engagement over performance.
Sam: Which resets the baseline for what counts as normal. We're not feeling deprived because our lives have objectively worsened—we're feeling deprived because the reference class we're implicitly comparing ourselves against is itself a performance.
Alex: And that has a dual effect. It taxes hedonic satisfaction—the present feels insufficient relative to the curated standard—but it also undermines eudaimonic striving. When your own projects and commitments are constantly measured against an audience performing at the upper tail of the distribution, the intrinsic motivation that sustains long-term engagement gets crowded out by a sense of symbolic inferiority. The paper describes this as transforming eudaimonic vocabulary into hedonic inventory—the language of meaning and purpose gets repurposed to sell the feeling of meaning and purpose, without delivering the underlying states.
Sam: So the hedonic treadmill doesn't just keep moving—the platform is actively accelerating it. The standard you're chasing recalibrates faster than you can adapt.
Alex: That's the structural trap the paper is pointing at. The attention economy requires dissatisfaction to function. A user who has achieved genuine eudaimonic contentment—absorbed in meaningful work, present in their relationships, not reflexively reaching for the phone—is a user who is not generating engagement. The system has no incentive to produce flourishing, and by the logic of its own optimization, every incentive to prevent it.
Sam: Which raises an uncomfortable question for anyone doing empirical work in this space. If the outcome variable is something as hard to operationalize as eudaimonia, how do we even measure what we're losing?
Alex: That's exactly where the paper leaves the reader, and it's the right place to leave them. The measurement problem is real—self-report scales for well-being have well-known limitations, and the constructs the paper invokes are notoriously difficult to disentangle from confounds like socioeconomic status or pre-existing mental health. But the conceptual architecture is doing something useful: it gives researchers a more precise vocabulary for what they should be trying to measure, rather than collapsing everything into screen time or hedonic affect. That's a meaningful contribution, even before the empirical work catches up.
Sam: So the paper is less a set of findings and more a theoretical frame—one that tries to specify the mechanism clearly enough that you could actually design a study to test it.
Alex: Precisely. And for a literature that has sometimes struggled to move beyond correlational associations between phone use and mood, having a mechanistic account of why the architecture of these platforms should produce the effects we observe is a useful foundation to build on. The paper stops short of prescriptive solutions, but the diagnostic is clear: we are running a population-scale experiment in substituting hedonic stimulation for eudaimonic depth, and the costs of that substitution are not showing up on anyone's balance sheet. Thanks for listening to ResearchPod.