Kaela

   I also wonder if they took into account people's general patterns in test taking.  For instance, I never rate anything either highest or lowest. (This is a common pattern, there are others.)

   The results were flattering, but believable?  Not really.

   It was nice though, to see choices of being carless and vegetarian on the food and transportation!!  Often times they are not included on ecological footprint calculations.

patrick

Yes, Patrick, "self-reporting" is hard to evaluate.  Such poll questions as "Do you intend to vote in November?," and "Do you give to charitable organizations?," tend to get rather high positive responses, which may not turn out to reflect reality.

I am glad, though, that the "ecological footprint" questions were there, and were frankly included in the commentary.  For better or worse, polls can be teaching tools.

As for "general patterns," I am sure the statisticians know how to deal with that.  There are so many Scorpio and Leo types (metaphorically!) who answer everything with a 1 or a 5, and there are so many Libra and Pisces types who answer everything with a 3, maybe a 4, or, well, then again, maybe a 2.  And then there are the Cancers and Capricorns, who on principle will go with 1 and 5 -- and Virgos are like that too -- , but otherwise will begrudge an extreme grade.  I tend to admire most the Tauruses: when they are right, they are right.  Alas, they are not always right.  But I also admire the Pisces types, for seeing deeply; and myself being an Aries, betwixt and between, with little true identity of our own, that fits.

Anyway ... it strikes me as a bit irresponsible that happiness is not defined, it is rather assumed as something that everyone immediately understands.  Rather like the way Aristotle uses "eudaimonia" in the Nicomachean Ethics.  It is ironic that that book has had so much influence over the centuries, given that its values are to a large extent based in the values of Aegean town society of the 4th century BCE, especially those of the Big Apple of the day, Athens.  By no means is that the worst standard we might choose, not at all; but by the same token it is hardly universal.

To be sure, there is a kind of intelligible and not unreasonable quotient in this "happiest nations" poll.  But what are the preconceptions and prejudices going into figuring out what questions should be asked, and how should the responses be evaluated?  It seems hard to believe that inhabitants of South Pacific islands are "happy" altogether, given that, for example, their islands are losing more ground to rising seas.  And we American respondents, in our Protestant-Ethic culture, may feel ourselves under a subtle pressure to demonstrate how "happy" we are.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

I suspect that as shortage dissapears within a culture so does the link between the quantity of possesions and consumption with fullfillment (a better word to measure happiness?).

I think that people coming from a generation of poverty, like the depression era generation, will equate quantity with fullfillment.  But as memories of shortage fade, then fullfillment will become synonomous with quality of life.

Then those with the highest status who tend to lead by example will be those whose quality of life provides the highest level of fullfillment.  It's in the vein of zen progress along the path of enlightenment.

This would indicate that consumption might just level off as population growth might level off also.  Instead of families and clans trying to out populate their neighbors (in a battle to exploit the maximum amount of natural resources)they might try to out fullfill their neighbors?  

My question is has this already started happening in cultures like those in Scandinavia?   Actual semi-objective evidence might be obtained by social science.  And that might lead to hope emerging from all the enviro gloom and doom.  

Would "Grist" then change its motto?  Hehehey.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Global warming mitigation will be a source of happiness when such mitigation makes us less alone (car pools, local production of food and energy, community and political activity, and so on).  Much better than mitigation making us unhappy with cold hungry poor-health and insanity.

CanisCandida, I think your point about what is the definition of happiness is a good one.  It is interesting that we take tests to find our how happy we are.  ROFLMAO!!!

Stephen Jay Gould wrote about America's obsession with statistics and measuring ourselves in meaningless ways.  (Which book?  Arrgggh, I forgot, and have no easy access to them here in China).

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/bibliography.html

I also don't recall the poll asking me how often I volunteer.  

Happiness is volunteering!

patrick

If religious thought brings you endorphin dumps, naturally you will assume that they will bring others endorphin dumps. The problem is, we don't all share the same fantasies.

Happiness is also not a steady state. It comes and goes with regularity. It is not possible to remain constantly happy, just as it is not possible to remain satiated after a meal.

Evolution uses happy feelings for a purpose. That's all there is to it. People in consumptive cultures are not happier than other cultures because we have too much choice. Give too much choice to any other culture and they will react similarly. Many of us spend all of our waking hours seeking status simply because we can. China will find that out soon enough. A San bushman has only so many ways to seek status before he hits a limit.

It helps to recognize status seeking behavior. By resisting the urge, one can add variety and diversity to one's life. Status is often based on deception and perception. A CEO or politician has a very constrained, mind numbing life, but a very high status, high serotonin state of being. In the past, this led to genetic material going into the future. Today, it doesn't mean squat. They exist to go to meetings so they can maintain their serotonin highs.


In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

I agree with what you write about the value of being close to one's extended family.  It corresponds to the poignant vision of Sunflower, who makes the important point of identifying loneliness as a principal cause of unhappiness.

Amen, Brother Biodiv!, and thanks for getting evolution into this.  According to polls (ha!, there are those polls again), among the principal characteristics that women find attractive in a man are confidence, and jocular good humor, i.e. being funny.  So presumably there is an evolutionary advantage in our species for the men at least to appear happy.

(And presumably women tend to be much more conscientious and serious and focused about poll-taking than men, as they are in so many other things.  I remember an old cartoon in the New Yorker by Roz Chast, showing a serious woman on a stool, her legs tightly crossed, with big eye glasses, beneath a close and fretful brow, anxiously reading a book entitled, "Women Who Read Too Much.")

And status is in there too, Amazing, as a point of attraction.  Wealth seems to go along naturally with confidence and laughter, the trappings of "happiness," at least in our culture.  And so not for nothing do men with the most toys, including of course at or near the top the coolest car, tend to be the least in want of female companionship.

God forbid that those women who tend to look more deeply be slighted.  But surely that is one of the great perennial questions that men ask (some at least; others of us look on from the sidelines at the Battle of the Sexes amusedly): How do women end up choosing the men that they choose?  Though it usually sounds more like, "I cannot believe it, she actually said she would go out with him!!!  What can she possibly see in that jerk?!!  She must be on drugs!  Her friends need to do a major intervention like right now!"

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

But you raise a good point, that the survey may not take into account differences in definitions of happiness based on sex or other factors, not only culture.

Biodiversisist, I don't agree that evolution uses happiness for a purpose.  That puts too much pressure on evolution, and almost suggests a conscious plan, or definite direction.  I am more in line with the late Dr. Gould, and others, who see evolution as happening, but not with a plan, and not always progressive (ie, things don't always move in a better direction).

People don't always seek status, at least not as Westerners define it.  The world is much more complicated than that.  At least the little bit of it I know (smile).

In China, a lot of young people volunteer to go out West into the countryside to teach.  Since many people here value money, this is not a high status activity, but it is a life changing one.  

patrick