3 ms·

>The findings were not all bleak for the United States. Despite having widespread negative experiences, Americans also generally reported more positive experien

>The findings were not all bleak for the United States. Despite having widespread negative experiences, Americans also generally reported more positive experiences, on average, than the rest of the world did. So we have both. But that isn't in the headline because it wouldn't be clickbaity enough. I honestly wonder how much of American's stress over the past few years is because of this crap. We are constantly told the sky is falling by new articles only to have it not be the truth.

andbberger 8y ago
The sky is definitely falling. Maybe you should talk to more poor people
- tomschlick 8y ago
  Maybe you should provide concrete examples instead of suggesting I talk to more poor people.
  - andbberger 8y ago
    hmm not sure the burden is on me here buddy, you opened with the classic 'middlebrow dismissal'. The people are: - drowning in debt - dying of preventable diseases because they cannot afford healthcare - working for a fraction of the true value of their labour, a fraction that gets smaller every year - losing more workers rights every year. The 'gig' economy was a master stroke of misdirection that destroyed basic protections like minimum wage and an 8 hour day that our predecessors fought so hard for - not getting nearly enough sleep ... shall I go on? But yeah, I'm sure none of that really bothers them and what they're ACTUALLY concerned about is that we can't make up our mind whether the sky is falling or not. Right.
    - dang 8y ago
      Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? It only makes this place worse, which helps no one. Giving up on respectful persuasion in order to bash enemies is a bad trade. True, you'll probably never persuade the commenter you're arguing with, but that's not what matters. What matters is the audience reading the thread. If you go into snark and aggression, the effect is to discredit your good points with the larger audience, weakening the influence of the truth you're trying to impart. That's one reason why the site guidelines ask you not to do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - andbberger 7y ago
        OK fair I could have said the same thing in a more neutral tone
- pard68 8y ago
  Generally speaking the poor report better mental health than the wealth. Anecdotally I also have to say my neighbors are much more jovial and optimistic than the wealthy people I interact with (I live in a very low income area). Should be noted my experiences are probably skewed towards optimistic as I live in a very religious area and generally speaking religious folk are more optimistic than secular folk.
  - fLflLflFlfl 8y ago
    What is "better mental health" in this context? It's pretty well established that rates of mental health issues are greater among those below the poverty line - see, for example, these data from 2015: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/report_2720/Spotlight-2720.html https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/report_2720/... If you're talking about general "level of happiness", there is evidence for the "money doesn't buy happiness" meme, but that is more the product of the hedonic treadmill than anything else. Our brains are good at convincing us that our current situation is okay, but that doesn't mean that poverty doesn't have very real effects on the basic services needed to function in our society.
  - iron0013 8y ago
    Generally speaking the poor report better mental health than the wealth. That is absolutely untrue.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >Maybe you should talk to more poor people Most people I know who were poor a decade ago are no longer poor.
  - andbberger 8y ago
    selection bias
    - BeetleB 8y ago
      When you say "Maybe you should talk to more poor people", unless you are advocating HN readers to conduct a randomized study, you are essentially telling HN readers to engage in selection bias.
      - fLflLflFlfl 8y ago
        “Seeking out perspectives that could combat your inherent selection bias” != selection bias. Are you arguing that poor people would be OVERrepresented in the minds of techies who go out and talk to them about their experiences?
        BeetleB 8y ago
        No - I am arguing that the only way not to have selection bias is by doing a randomized survey - it is the very definition of selection bias. If andbberger wishes to make a nice, nuanced argument, I encourage him/her to do so. However, if instead (s)he wishes to provide two word answers, (s)he should expect push back. Furthermore, I highly doubt andbberger has done a randomized study, and thus the accusation of selection bias applies equally to him/her. Saying things like "perhaps you should talk to more poor people" is simply dismissive, and unjustifiably assumes that someone who is disagreeing with him/her hasn't talked to enough poor people or that the other person suffers from selection bias, and not him/herself. Look at the whole thread: andbberger's comments are short, lacking any citations, sarcastic, accusatory ("middlebrow dismissal", not talking to poor people, talking to the wrong poor people). Contrast with HN guidelines: >Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. (Two word responses don't help). >Assume good faith. (Implying people of being ignorant of the conditions of the poor doesn't help). >Please don't post shallow dismissals ("Selection bias") So no, I'm not commenting here to argue whether the conditions of the poor constitutes a sky falling. I'm commenting to counter low quality statements.

andbberger 8y ago

The sky is definitely falling. Maybe you should talk to more poor people

tomschlick 8y ago
Maybe you should provide concrete examples instead of suggesting I talk to more poor people.
- andbberger 8y ago
  hmm not sure the burden is on me here buddy, you opened with the classic 'middlebrow dismissal'. The people are: - drowning in debt - dying of preventable diseases because they cannot afford healthcare - working for a fraction of the true value of their labour, a fraction that gets smaller every year - losing more workers rights every year. The 'gig' economy was a master stroke of misdirection that destroyed basic protections like minimum wage and an 8 hour day that our predecessors fought so hard for - not getting nearly enough sleep ... shall I go on? But yeah, I'm sure none of that really bothers them and what they're ACTUALLY concerned about is that we can't make up our mind whether the sky is falling or not. Right.
  - dang 8y ago
    Can you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? It only makes this place worse, which helps no one. Giving up on respectful persuasion in order to bash enemies is a bad trade. True, you'll probably never persuade the commenter you're arguing with, but that's not what matters. What matters is the audience reading the thread. If you go into snark and aggression, the effect is to discredit your good points with the larger audience, weakening the influence of the truth you're trying to impart. That's one reason why the site guidelines ask you not to do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - andbberger 7y ago
      OK fair I could have said the same thing in a more neutral tone
pard68 8y ago
Generally speaking the poor report better mental health than the wealth. Anecdotally I also have to say my neighbors are much more jovial and optimistic than the wealthy people I interact with (I live in a very low income area). Should be noted my experiences are probably skewed towards optimistic as I live in a very religious area and generally speaking religious folk are more optimistic than secular folk.
- fLflLflFlfl 8y ago
  What is "better mental health" in this context? It's pretty well established that rates of mental health issues are greater among those below the poverty line - see, for example, these data from 2015: https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/report_2720/Spotlight-2720.html https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/report_2720/... If you're talking about general "level of happiness", there is evidence for the "money doesn't buy happiness" meme, but that is more the product of the hedonic treadmill than anything else. Our brains are good at convincing us that our current situation is okay, but that doesn't mean that poverty doesn't have very real effects on the basic services needed to function in our society.
- iron0013 8y ago
  Generally speaking the poor report better mental health than the wealth. That is absolutely untrue.
BeetleB 8y ago
>Maybe you should talk to more poor people Most people I know who were poor a decade ago are no longer poor.
- andbberger 8y ago
  selection bias
  - BeetleB 8y ago
    When you say "Maybe you should talk to more poor people", unless you are advocating HN readers to conduct a randomized study, you are essentially telling HN readers to engage in selection bias.
    - fLflLflFlfl 8y ago
      “Seeking out perspectives that could combat your inherent selection bias” != selection bias. Are you arguing that poor people would be OVERrepresented in the minds of techies who go out and talk to them about their experiences?
      - BeetleB 8y ago
        No - I am arguing that the only way not to have selection bias is by doing a randomized survey - it is the very definition of selection bias. If andbberger wishes to make a nice, nuanced argument, I encourage him/her to do so. However, if instead (s)he wishes to provide two word answers, (s)he should expect push back. Furthermore, I highly doubt andbberger has done a randomized study, and thus the accusation of selection bias applies equally to him/her. Saying things like "perhaps you should talk to more poor people" is simply dismissive, and unjustifiably assumes that someone who is disagreeing with him/her hasn't talked to enough poor people or that the other person suffers from selection bias, and not him/herself. Look at the whole thread: andbberger's comments are short, lacking any citations, sarcastic, accusatory ("middlebrow dismissal", not talking to poor people, talking to the wrong poor people). Contrast with HN guidelines: >Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. (Two word responses don't help). >Assume good faith. (Implying people of being ignorant of the conditions of the poor doesn't help). >Please don't post shallow dismissals ("Selection bias") So no, I'm not commenting here to argue whether the conditions of the poor constitutes a sky falling. I'm commenting to counter low quality statements.