Of course it's subjective -- this is the very point, to measure subjective experience. This point seems to slip through these types of discussions, because peo

Of course it's subjective -- this is the very point, to measure subjective experience. This point seems to slip through these types of discussions, because people want to keep changing the focus of the research. When you change the topic from subjective experience to, say, neural properties, you're not studying the same thing anymore. There are plenty of measures of subjective experience of happiness. We can debate the merits of these measures, but they exist. They're reproducible and you can scale them over time or across people. If someone says they are miserable, and rates themself a 1 on a scale of 1 to 5, this has to be subjective. Are they lying? Perhaps, but then too maybe that radio signal you obtained is a microwave next door. Units on many psychological measures could be obtained (see test equating) but there's not enough agreement on which measures to use, and in fact, use of multiple measures is encouraged because of variation in what might be an appropriate target of study (hedonic versus eudaimonic well-being for instance). Units in psychology are somewhat similar to where units of temperature were in the 18th or maybe 19th century.