It seems clear to me that the group of feelings associated with what we call happiness have a specific function within the machinery of our brain. Speaking from an evolutionary perspective, they are one of the mechanisms which would enable human beings to be related with the things under their influence in a specific way, so that the survival of their families would be possible.

So, "getting what you want doesn't actually have anything to do with being happy", but being happy had to do with getting what was, in the ancient civilizations in which our genes were gradually coded, the need to survive and ensure the survival of the next generation, so that we could talk about this right now. Specifically, the positive feelings of happiness needed, and still need, to be associated with the actions our organisms need to undertake to live.
I may be wrong with everything I said, but I had to explain my point of view.

I do agree with your comment, as if we gain the whole world but lost our own soul.. then what's the point. Happy to me means we are doing what we like to do without any forcing.
www.secretsofgettingprosperous.com

These are some very interesting ideas. I had thoughts about synthetic happiness but never quite knew the science behind it. I agree with Matt that in order to be happy, one must have the ability to do what they will without there being any sort of boundaries or force.

I think all these researches that present love and happiness as simple reflexes are useless. Happiness is a great feeling when you don't try to analyze it. It is a spontaneous feeling! Besides, do all these studies make people (except researchers) happier? Hardly. So, what they are for?