It "actually is" nothing tho. For me I don't get any emotional satisfaction (or any other form of satusfaction) from "good" things happening.
Bench press PR? No reaction. Got a job? No reaction.
Only thing I can get emotionally worked up over are "negative" things with the one exeption of when I delude myself into thinking a woman is interested in me (lmao).
[I will probably regret having posted this tomorrow, because it's fairly late and I don't even know if I'm making any sense.]
If it were possible to objectively rate positive experiences and negative experiences on a scale from 1 to 10, a negative experience of order 7 would have a much bigger impact than a positive experience of the same magnitude.
An example: A couple has a child which dies of an accident at the age of 5. They now might want to try to create a new child in order to compensate for the loss. For the sake of the argument, let us assume that the new child turns out very similar to the deceased child. From a logical point of view, these two events (birth of a child/ death of a child) have the same value, so we should achieve a net neutral, but we all know that the parents will forever mourn the loss of their first child, no matter how much happiness the second one brings them; they will never achieve a "neutral" existence.
There is a reason why negative experiences figure more prominently in our perception than positive experiences. In order to achieve a positive experience, most of the time one has to work/take action/exert effort to reach the goal. Once the positive experience is achieved, no further action, or at least less action, is necessary. It is the inverse problem with negative experiences: one does not have to exert any effort to achieve a negative experience, since negative experiences are not something one would want to achieve in the first place; they merely happen. Once the negative experience occurs, one has to work/take action/exert effort to overcome it/make it go away/resolve the issue. One could argue that these two are equivalent: The absence of a positive experience is a negative experience and the resolution of a negative experience is a positive experience.
Either way, the point is this: Negative experiences induce a need for taking action, whereas positive experiences are preceded by action. While there is usually some kind of intrinsic motivation to exert efforts in order to achieve a positive experience, the motivation to take action to overcome a negative experience are always forced upon one, i.e. extrinsic.
An example: Winning the lottery or receiving a promotion does not necessitate action on one's own part; they might be preceded by efforts, but they do not induce the need for any. On the other hand, losing a lot of money or losing one's job leaves one no choice but to act. Therefore, negative experiences are inherently perceived as more unpleasant and affect us greater than positive experiences.