Does this underlined sentence refer to which case of the three? It's confusing.
1.Making $1 million in one year, but nothing in the preceding nine
2.having the total evenly distributed over the same period, that is, $100,000 every year for ten years in a row
3.inverse order ―making a bundle the first year, then nothing for the remaining period
36)Making $1 million in one year, but nothing in the preceding nine, does not bring the same pleasure as having the total evenly distributed over the same period, that is, $100,000 every year for ten years in a row. The same applies to the inverse order ―making a bundle the first year, then nothing for the remaining period. Somehow, your pleasure system will be saturated rather quickly. As a matter of fact, your happiness depends far more on the number of instances of positive
feelings, what psychologists call “positive affect,” than on their intensity. In other words, good news is good news first; how good matters rather little. So to have a pleasant life you should .spread these small affects across time as evenly as possible Plenty of mildly good news is preferable to one single lump of great news.
To me, the text may be regarded as a clipping, and is not complete. And, since it says "the same applies to..." #3, I think it can be considered to refer both to 1 and 3. Some preceding sentences are missing: "Happiness depends more on the frequency and distribution of positive experiences than their intensity; indeed, intense joy fails to bring overall happiness when it is experienced over limited periods of time...." It is that sort of principle that the sentence in question refers to (indirectly, in a manner that I would describe as badly written).