3 ms·
I personally don't like WHR. But it's almost like scholarly communication don't rely on a naive dictionary understanding of words. Happiness here signifies perf
by tokai 6y ago
I personally don't like WHR. But it's almost like scholarly communication don't rely on a naive dictionary understanding of words. Happiness here signifies performance within their WELLBYs methodology. Discussing the nuances of the word happiness is getting lost in semantics, as it's meaning in this context is axiomatic to what ever WELLBY signifies. Critiquing their word use instead of their methods is getting lost in the sauce.
- nevinera 6y agoWhen you pop out a headline like "nordics happiest people on earth!" and a million people read it, what matters is _not_ whether your definition of 'happy' was technically correct within the framework of the study you're writing about. You can try to hold the position that all those readers are wrong, and the article is fine. But more reasonable people will think you're being silly, and that journalists are basically responsible for choosing words that will be interpreted correctly by their readers. But if your issue was with who I was criticizing, that's fair - the researchers probably weren't intentionally mis-communicating, and my criticism wasn't targeted clearly enough.