Sunny Side Up: Choosing to live a psychologically rich life
According to Harvard professor Ellen Langer, when we live on autopilot, 'we're not there to know we're not there'. Life happens, but we can often miss it.
Prof Langer, who has spent decades studying mindfulness, talks about the cost of mindlessness – the time we lose when we stop noticing our lives. We meet deadlines. We answer messages. We keep things ticking over. But there are days, sometimes weeks, where nothing quite stands out.
That sense – of time moving quickly but without texture – is something many people recognise, even if they don't name it. And while the common advice might be to find meaning or purpose, another term has emerged in recent years that's worth our attention: psychological richness.
The concept was introduced by University of Chicago psychology professor Shigehiro Oishi and colleagues, who describe it as a life characterised by 'variety, novelty, and interest'.
They suggest that while happiness and meaning are important, they can become repetitive, and sometimes even dull, if they're not accompanied by a richness of experience.
Psychological richness refers to a life filled with varied, emotionally engaging, and thought-provoking experiences. It's the kind of richness that emerges not from comfort or routine, but from moments that challenge, surprise, or stir something in us. It might involve trying a new skill, having different or unexpected conversations, or taking an interest in something outside your orbit.
There's real wisdom in the advice to 'Try something new every day'. Perhaps we needn't go as far as every day, but new experiences certainly help us to feel less like we're 'going through the motions' and more like we're living life.
Of course, routine is important. There's comfort in structure and habit, and for many, it provides a sense of stability. But without the occasional jolt of novelty, we risk becoming mentally stagnant.
Without new experiences, we also risk falling into a kind of emotional flatness. The days may be filled, but they aren't fulfilling. While the language of 'burnout' or 'stress' is common, less spoken about is this sense of detachment, where time passes but little feels meaningful.
It's not always obvious. Sometimes it's a lack of enthusiasm, or a sense that conversations feel recycled. Other times it's the feeling of looking back on a year and struggling to recall moments that felt significant. This is where psychological richness offers something distinctive.
Unlike happiness, which can centre on ease, or purpose, which looks to direction, richness offers depth. To have experiences that affect us deeply, we need to consciously engage in seeking out the new and novel.
Varied experiences stretch us. They're thought-provoking, and evoke emotion. The danger in avoiding such moments isn't catastrophe – it's inertia. The feeling that life has become too carefully managed.
In her book, The Top Five Regrets Of The Dying (2011), Bronnie Ware notes that the most common regret people voiced was, 'I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me'. To live true to who we are isn't only a matter of values. It's also making space for experiences that speak to our curiosity and spirit – especially when they don't serve a neat purpose.
A rich life, psychologically speaking, goes beyond efficiency or comfort. It allows for the unexpected, the awkward, the unfamiliar – and recognising the value these things can bring. That might mean starting something new later in life. It might mean sitting with a book you don't immediately enjoy, or joining a group activity without knowing whether you'll fit in.
In all these cases, the point isn't to become someone else. It's to wake up to what you might be missing when life is always lived within the usual bounds.
To borrow the oft-repeated mantra from bank chairman Datuk Lee Lung Nien, psychological richness invites us to 'Get a life'. He advises that becoming a more well-rounded person doesn't just make us more interesting to others – it makes us more interested in others as we become more open and curious.
Those who live psychologically rich lives tend to become more emotionally attuned. They ask better questions, and they listen with greater attention. Not because they've trained themselves to, but because they've cultivated a sense of pleasure in looking beyond the normal.
Psychological richness doesn't require radical change. It simply asks that we notice what we're doing, and why. It also encourages us to resist the impulse to fill every spare moment with convenience or noise, and instead make space for moments we don't plan or measure.
A psychologically rich life doesn't promise happiness; instead, it makes us feel we're living life rather than letting life happen around us. And as the years pass, we might come to remember them not because they were productive, but because something stirred us, stayed with us, and gave shape to our life in a way we could feel, not just remember. Sunny Side Up columnist Sandy Clarke has long held an interest in emotions, mental health, mindfulness and meditation. He believes the more we understand ourselves and each other, the better societies we can create. If you have any questions or comments, e-mail lifestyle@thestar.com.my. The views expressed here are entirely the writer's own.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
31-05-2025
- Free Malaysia Today
Defunding Harvard hurts America
Last week, I was among hundreds of researchers at Harvard University who received termination notices for our federal research grants. Mine was for a project to study electrical signalling between neurons in the brain. My lab's research has led to progress in treatments for pain, epilepsy, and ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). We have been working to map the physiological basis of memory, enabling new ways to study Alzheimer's disease. All of our work is available for the public to see. I am a long-time member of the Harvard community (18 years on the faculty, plus four years as an undergraduate), and I am visibly and proudly Jewish. The government's decision to withhold federal funding in the name of combating antisemitism is wrong, bad for Jews everywhere, and terrible for the US. Yes, antisemitism on campus is real and must be confronted. Harvard's recent report on the matter documents harrowing incidents of bias and harassment. But in my 22 years here, I have never personally encountered antisemitism. From many conversations with Jewish students and colleagues, I am confident that Harvard is and has been a welcoming and supportive home for the vast majority. The problem of antisemitism is serious but not systemic. A proportionate and effective response requires local knowledge and nuanced leadership, exactly the sort that Harvard's president, Alan Garber, provides. His Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias, and the parallel Presidential Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias, studied these problems extensively and provided strong recommendations that strike a thoughtful balance between the sometimes-competing demands of free speech and protections against harassment. Some are already being implemented. By contrast, US president Donald Trump's administration is seeking to destroy Harvard, and its assertion that it is doing so to combat antisemitism effectively pins the blame for the wreckage on the Jews. Whatever the administration's intent, the effect is indistinguishable from genuine antisemitism. The intent, apparently, is to turn antisemitism into a political weapon, associating it solely with the left and portraying the right as protectors of Jewish students, and hence America's Jews. The government's charges of antisemitism at Harvard and other universities have been supplemented with a litany of other accusations: that students are indoctrinated with leftist ideology; that academic standards have slipped; that Harvard's faculty and students are living fat off taxpayer dollars. Trump claimed: 'Harvard can no longer be considered even a decent place of learning.' I invite any Trump administration official who thinks our academic standards have declined to sit for an exam in my class. If you can explain the quantum principles underlying the structure of the Periodic Table (like my 18-year-old freshmen can), then you can lecture me on academic standards. The notes for my graduate biophysics class are online. I challenge any reader to guess my political leanings from these notes (be careful, you might learn some physics while searching). My classes are the norm, not the exception. Trump supporters argue that, given its US$53.2 billion endowment, Harvard doesn't need federal money. But the opposite is true. The endowment has been subsidising research costs by supporting graduate students, financing core facilities, and providing funds to help new researchers get started. This support provides additional leverage for taxpayer investments in science. Every dollar of my grants is scrutinised. There is no fat. Overhead charges to federal grants pay for compliance with federal regulations, safety standards, and lab infrastructure. The Republican Party that Trump leads has long championed local control, limited government, and the free market – especially when it comes to education. For decades, US conservatives have fought for school choice, opposed federal overreach, and insisted that parents, teachers, and local communities – not federal bureaucrats – know best how to educate their children. These values should apply just as much to higher education as they do to primary and secondary schools. Yet today, some of the same voices calling for decentralisation are applauding a heavy-handed federal effort to punish a private university, to dictate who gets to study and teach there, and to interfere in research funding decisions that have traditionally been merit-based and apolitical. The federal government has no more business telling Harvard who it can admit or hire, or what its faculty can teach, than it does setting the curriculum at my kids' public school. Students come to Harvard to learn; if we don't deliver, they will go elsewhere. If Harvard faculty don't produce valuable research, they will lose grants. The academic marketplace is self-correcting, and it is fiercely competitive. When the government steps in to micromanage that system to score political points, it undermines the principles conservatives have defended for generations. In the short term, the people most affected by the Trump administration's funding cuts are not tenured professors, but rather early-career scientists, postdoctoral researchers, and graduate students, very few of whom have any connection to campus activism. In the long term, the US itself will be worse off, both because of the discoveries that don't happen and because global leadership in science and technology will be ceded to China and other countries. The US needs more research funding, not less. On May 15, researchers announced a breakthrough treatment for a baby who had an otherwise-fatal genetic condition – an advance based on discoveries first made at Harvard. Other Harvard researchers are working on advanced battery technologies, and mobility aids for stroke survivors and injured soldiers. Federal investment in science – at Harvard and other US universities – is an investment in a healthier, wealthier, and more secure future for Americans of all backgrounds and beliefs. Cutting it off is a wanton act of self-sabotage. Adam Ezra Cohen is professor of chemistry and physics at Harvard University. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
Malay Mail
29-05-2025
- Malay Mail
Exodus begins: Harvard foreign students leave as Trump ban faces court battle
WASHINGTON, May 29 — Harvard University has been flooded with requests from foreign students to transfer to other institutions as US President Donald Trump's administration seeks to ban it from hosting international scholars, a staff member said Wednesday. 'Too many international students to count have inquired about the possibility of transferring to another institution,' Maureen Martin, director of immigration services, wrote in a court filing. Trump has upended the United States' reputation among foreign students, who number around one million, as he presses a campaign against US universities he sees as obstructing his 'Make America Great Again' populist agenda. He has blocked Harvard from hosting international scholars in a maneuver being challenged legally, targeted non-citizen campus activists for deportation, and most recently suspended student visa processing across the board. The president's crackdown has prompted 'profound fear, concern, and confusion' among students and staff at the elite university, which has been 'inundated with questions from current international students and scholars about their status and options', Martin wrote. More than 27 percent of Harvard's enrollment was made up of foreign students in the 2024-25 academic year, according to university data. 'Many international students and scholars are reporting significant emotional distress that is affecting their mental health and making it difficult to focus on their studies,' Martin wrote in the filing. Some were afraid to attend their graduation ceremonies this week or had canceled travel plans for fear of being refused re-entry into the United States, she added. She said that a handful of domestic students at Harvard had also 'expressed serious interest' in transferring elsewhere because they did not want to attend a university with no international students. A judge last week suspended the government's move to block Harvard from enrolling and hosting foreign students after the Ivy League school sued, calling the action unconstitutional. A hearing into the case was scheduled for Thursday. At least 10 foreign students or scholars at Harvard had their visa applications refused immediately after the block on foreign students was announced, including students whose visa applications had already been approved, Martin wrote. 'My current understanding is that the visa applications that were refused or revoked following the Revocation Notice have not yet been approved or reinstated,' despite a judge suspending the move, she said. — AFP
The Star
20-05-2025
- The Star
Sunny Side Up: Choosing to live a psychologically rich life
According to Harvard professor Ellen Langer, when we live on autopilot, 'we're not there to know we're not there'. Life happens, but we can often miss it. Prof Langer, who has spent decades studying mindfulness, talks about the cost of mindlessness – the time we lose when we stop noticing our lives. We meet deadlines. We answer messages. We keep things ticking over. But there are days, sometimes weeks, where nothing quite stands out. That sense – of time moving quickly but without texture – is something many people recognise, even if they don't name it. And while the common advice might be to find meaning or purpose, another term has emerged in recent years that's worth our attention: psychological richness. The concept was introduced by University of Chicago psychology professor Shigehiro Oishi and colleagues, who describe it as a life characterised by 'variety, novelty, and interest'. They suggest that while happiness and meaning are important, they can become repetitive, and sometimes even dull, if they're not accompanied by a richness of experience. Psychological richness refers to a life filled with varied, emotionally engaging, and thought-provoking experiences. It's the kind of richness that emerges not from comfort or routine, but from moments that challenge, surprise, or stir something in us. It might involve trying a new skill, having different or unexpected conversations, or taking an interest in something outside your orbit. There's real wisdom in the advice to 'Try something new every day'. Perhaps we needn't go as far as every day, but new experiences certainly help us to feel less like we're 'going through the motions' and more like we're living life. Of course, routine is important. There's comfort in structure and habit, and for many, it provides a sense of stability. But without the occasional jolt of novelty, we risk becoming mentally stagnant. Without new experiences, we also risk falling into a kind of emotional flatness. The days may be filled, but they aren't fulfilling. While the language of 'burnout' or 'stress' is common, less spoken about is this sense of detachment, where time passes but little feels meaningful. It's not always obvious. Sometimes it's a lack of enthusiasm, or a sense that conversations feel recycled. Other times it's the feeling of looking back on a year and struggling to recall moments that felt significant. This is where psychological richness offers something distinctive. Unlike happiness, which can centre on ease, or purpose, which looks to direction, richness offers depth. To have experiences that affect us deeply, we need to consciously engage in seeking out the new and novel. Varied experiences stretch us. They're thought-provoking, and evoke emotion. The danger in avoiding such moments isn't catastrophe – it's inertia. The feeling that life has become too carefully managed. In her book, The Top Five Regrets Of The Dying (2011), Bronnie Ware notes that the most common regret people voiced was, 'I wish I'd had the courage to live a life true to myself, not the life others expected of me'. To live true to who we are isn't only a matter of values. It's also making space for experiences that speak to our curiosity and spirit – especially when they don't serve a neat purpose. A rich life, psychologically speaking, goes beyond efficiency or comfort. It allows for the unexpected, the awkward, the unfamiliar – and recognising the value these things can bring. That might mean starting something new later in life. It might mean sitting with a book you don't immediately enjoy, or joining a group activity without knowing whether you'll fit in. In all these cases, the point isn't to become someone else. It's to wake up to what you might be missing when life is always lived within the usual bounds. To borrow the oft-repeated mantra from bank chairman Datuk Lee Lung Nien, psychological richness invites us to 'Get a life'. He advises that becoming a more well-rounded person doesn't just make us more interesting to others – it makes us more interested in others as we become more open and curious. Those who live psychologically rich lives tend to become more emotionally attuned. They ask better questions, and they listen with greater attention. Not because they've trained themselves to, but because they've cultivated a sense of pleasure in looking beyond the normal. Psychological richness doesn't require radical change. It simply asks that we notice what we're doing, and why. It also encourages us to resist the impulse to fill every spare moment with convenience or noise, and instead make space for moments we don't plan or measure. A psychologically rich life doesn't promise happiness; instead, it makes us feel we're living life rather than letting life happen around us. And as the years pass, we might come to remember them not because they were productive, but because something stirred us, stayed with us, and gave shape to our life in a way we could feel, not just remember. Sunny Side Up columnist Sandy Clarke has long held an interest in emotions, mental health, mindfulness and meditation. He believes the more we understand ourselves and each other, the better societies we can create. If you have any questions or comments, e-mail lifestyle@ The views expressed here are entirely the writer's own.
