3 ms·

The happiness/income debunking here is flawed. The use of logarithm for the graph axis to give the perspective of a linear relationship is flawed - it's also re

The happiness/income debunking here is flawed. The use of logarithm for the graph axis to give the perspective of a linear relationship is flawed - it's also responding to a mis-summary of the research. Also note that the graph axis for income tops out at around.. about that 75k/year figure. Whoops. It should also be noted that 75k figure is a median, it changes based on cost of living.

srinivgp 5y ago
It is not flawed. The subject is under study, continually. The debunking comes from https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2016976118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2016976118 where yes, many measures of happiness seem to increase linearly as log(income) increases. That means diminishing marginal utility of money, but it does not mean there's a cap - the relationship seems to continue at all income levels. The main reason to believe the famous previous research was in good faith and could still miss this result is because the previous research used a measure of happiness which itself capped out, and so _could not detect_ changes in happiness after a certain level. If your instruments can't register any changes above some amount, it is no wonder your results level off and stop at that amount. This new research could be wrong, of course. But there's no mis-summary here.
- niko001 5y ago
  That's super interesting! I can see their study included asking to what extent the participants are experiencing certain negative/positive feelings (which may give some more context), but isn't their core measure of happiness also capped? They use a continuous response scale, but in terms of being capped, it shouldn't matter if it's measured on a 0-100 or 1-5 scale, no? The participants can't be happier than "extremely happy" in their study design as far as I can tell.
datavirtue 5y ago
At $75k you stop sucking water with every breath. $150k is a whole different life.

srinivgp 5y ago

It is not flawed. The subject is under study, continually. The debunking comes from https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2016976118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2016976118 where yes, many measures of happiness seem to increase linearly as log(income) increases. That means diminishing marginal utility of money, but it does not mean there's a cap - the relationship seems to continue at all income levels. The main reason to believe the famous previous research was in good faith and could still miss this result is because the previous research used a measure of happiness which itself capped out, and so _could not detect_ changes in happiness after a certain level. If your instruments can't register any changes above some amount, it is no wonder your results level off and stop at that amount. This new research could be wrong, of course. But there's no mis-summary here.

niko001 5y ago
That's super interesting! I can see their study included asking to what extent the participants are experiencing certain negative/positive feelings (which may give some more context), but isn't their core measure of happiness also capped? They use a continuous response scale, but in terms of being capped, it shouldn't matter if it's measured on a 0-100 or 1-5 scale, no? The participants can't be happier than "extremely happy" in their study design as far as I can tell.

datavirtue 5y ago

At $75k you stop sucking water with every breath. $150k is a whole different life.