"Is ignorance bliss?" is indeed a question that can be debated forever, but like all questions with a measurable result, there is only one right answer.
Information is useless in and of itself. What you do with the knowledge is what ultimately determines if it makes you happy or depressed. Does gaining information so that you can worry about a greater range of subjects make you happier? Probably not. Does gaining information so you can spot a greater range of opportunities make you happier? Probably. Does gaining information have any effect if your behavior doesn't reflect it? There's probably a number of correlations to this one, but no real causation. Strictly neurologically speaking, the absence of information does not trigger any reward in the brain. It is possible (but currently unproven) that greater amounts of information connecting to a particular event results in a deeper or more satisfying experience than a less connected one, but an explicit lack of information certainly does not contribute to feelings of happiness. In the best case, a lack of information will produce better results than greater amounts of inaccurate information. I believe this misunderstanding is what produces the question in the first place.
For example: A 'caveman' who mechanically responds to his environment will be happy so long as his starting factors do not conflict with environmental events later on in his life, because his expectations are accurate and thus he always "gets what he wants" - an animal. However, a change in the environment (an ice age, or more relevantly, a cultural revolution) would be evolutionarily disastrous for our caveman - without the ability to actively manage his own expectations, he is bound to continue acting in obsolete ways based on now-irrelevant starting factors, and eventually become extinct.
Just consider our advancements in cancer treatment, heart disease and antibiotics: in only two generations, the entire notion of "dying in your sleep" has all but disappeared as advancing medical sciences have raised everyone's expectations for survival to the sky - not just for themselves, but for everyone they know. At face value, it's simply no longer acceptable to die, while in the past it was a normal part of life, which causes a great deal of unnecessary grief every time someone does die. On the other hand, those expectations are also a large part of what drives our medical science advancements.
In summary, information is neither beneficial or harmful in itself. What causes non-bliss is failure to adapt either (or both) your behavior and expectations to your environment.
This is an excellent topic. I'm glad someone brought it up.
Voodoo, are you suggesting that our actions and thought processes are a result of our environment? ( I.E. Behavior is learned? )
As for how we deal with new incoming information, I think the results rely upon the pre-concieved notions of the beholder.
On that note, I'll refer to the 3 theories of emotion.
James-Lange = The James-Lange theory refers to a hypothesis on the origin and nature of emotions developed independently by two 19th-century scholars, William James and Carl Lange. The theory states that within human beings, as a response to experiences in the world, the autonomic nervous system creates physiological events such as muscular tension, a rise in heart rate, perspiration, and dryness of the mouth. Emotions, then, are feelings which come about as a result of these physiological changes, rather than being their cause.
The Cannon-Bard Theory = Theorizes that physiological changes are caused by emotions
Schachter & Singer's Theory = Theorizes that emotions are a direct result of an analysis of the surroundings.
I personally agree with the Schachter & Singer Theory. I think that the analysis, however, can be replaced by a pre-concieved notion. If you have thought about life and death, then perhaps the death of someone on the news, or even a loved one will be more understandable. This isn't to say that it isn't a big deal, don't get me wrong. I just believe that your emotional reaction is based on either your current analysis of the event at hand, or the pre-concieved notion of the situation.
Any thoughts?
