5 ms·

I like Bhutan's constitutional adoption of "Gross National Happiness" as an alternative: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness https://en.m.w

I like Bhutan's constitutional adoption of "Gross National Happiness" as an alternative: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness

sporadicallyjoe 4y ago
The Human Development Index is another good alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
- tormeh 4y ago
  I don’t personally like it. It measures input factors rather than outcomes. I think surveyed happiness multiplied by life expectancy is a better measure.
  - robocat 4y ago
    “Input factors” have many imperfections, but at least they can lead to more objectively comparable metrics. When comparing between populations, subjective measures such as surveyed happiness make for very poor and very noisy metrics - you often can’t even simply compare answers between different populations within a country. It is even dependent upon your age demographic https://archive.ph/sAzDA https://archive.ph/sAzDA and there are some surprisingly counterintuitive properties to reported happiness: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox I would think that life expectancy is a poor metric, because: (1) the differences become smaller as it rises so it becomes dominated by noise, (2) it overvalues the last few years of life compared to the rest of a life, and (3) expectancy is highly dependent on how it is calculated along with parameters such as input factors, similar to those that you dislike! In summary: intuition can often be a very poor substitute for research, and before relying on your intuition it is a good idea to look at the basics.
bootsmann 4y ago
Thing with this is that causality is so much harder to prove so any type of evidence-based policy is reduced to stabbing around in the dark hoping that the odds of the next happiness poll are not diluted by some random corruption scandal. The whole point of having measurable metrics and models is that they allow the use of the scientific method in policy making, whilst asking random people in the street might just get different answers whether you are asking them during or after their lunch break.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  It’s the usual tension between an easy measure of something highly misleading and a harder to measure actually meaningful index. IMO going the easier route invariably brings along many other dangerous shortcuts. For instance here you mention “scientific method” for GDP when the measure in itself isn’t that reliable: what fits inside GDP isn’t fixed nor objective, and a lot of decisions happens upon survey. We have countries (most countries ?) regularly reshaping how they measure GDP to fit the narrative they need.
- TheDong 4y ago
  > causality is so much harder to prove [...] The whole point of having measurable metrics and models is that they allow the use of the scientific method in policy making A happiness index is hard to measure, agreed... but that's also not how GDP is used. Policy-makers will say "our research shows lowering taxes will do X and increase GDP", or "our research shows raising taxes will do Y and increase GDP". That happens now. I don't think we usually actually manage to tie an actual law or policy, as implemented, back to a change in GDP pretty much ever. It's not really the scientific method. What GDP gives us is a way to frame policy. If our number were "National Happiness", policies would be framed in terms of that. "Increasing taxes lets us make this work better, and increases happiness" and "Decreasing taxes gives people more money, which increases happiness". The same policies, but framed differently, and with different arguments as a result. That framing seems better to me, and how measurable and "scientific" it is seems like it would barely change.
  - gruez 4y ago
Foofoobar12345 4y ago
Having visited Bhutan and spent a considerable amount of time there, I've noticed the locals aren't that much happier than most other places in the world. It's difficult to be happy when you have to constantly worry about how to put food on the table. I've gotten swindled enough times in Bhutan, however not as much as in certain "shit-hole" cities that I shall not name. The whole "GNH" concept was created by McKinsey, contracted by Bhutan - I know the leads on that project. While it does bring in some level of national identity to rally around, I think the primary benefit it brings is in marketing. There are some meditation centers in Bhutan that charge more than $5K/day, targeted towards the extremely rich who have lost a sense of peace in their pursuit of wealth. This, of course, is a grand con - there's no happiness you're going to find in Bhutan that you can't find in your immediate surroundings. New Zealand, on the other hand, I feel is doing a lot better. There's a general acceptance that communing with nature is important, while at the same time, they readily embrace modern comforts and continue building their economy. They're also attempting to build a better way to interact with natives and are creating programs such as EHF (ehf.org) to attempt to tackle the grand planet-wide problems, with impact as a focus. True impact is impossible to measure with just any one number. Anyone who attempts to put a number to this will run into the trouble of that number getting gamed.
- la64710 4y ago
  Very well articulated. Thanks for sharing.
- gruez 4y ago
  >The whole "GNH" concept was created by McKinsey, contracted by Bhutan - I know the leads on that project. source? I searched around couldn't find anything resembling that. The closest I found was one source[1] which stated the king of Bhutan used the phrase "Gross National Happiness" in a 1971 speech, and that the country paid McKinsey $9M for a report in 2009[2]. [1] https://publicism.info/economics/invention/10.html https://publicism.info/economics/invention/10.html [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bhutan/modernizing-bhutan-questions-where-happiness-lies-idUKTRE5BH03420091218 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bhutan/modernizing-bhutan...
- parabyl 4y ago

sporadicallyjoe 4y ago

The Human Development Index is another good alternative: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

tormeh 4y ago
I don’t personally like it. It measures input factors rather than outcomes. I think surveyed happiness multiplied by life expectancy is a better measure.
- robocat 4y ago
  “Input factors” have many imperfections, but at least they can lead to more objectively comparable metrics. When comparing between populations, subjective measures such as surveyed happiness make for very poor and very noisy metrics - you often can’t even simply compare answers between different populations within a country. It is even dependent upon your age demographic https://archive.ph/sAzDA https://archive.ph/sAzDA and there are some surprisingly counterintuitive properties to reported happiness: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easterlin_paradox I would think that life expectancy is a poor metric, because: (1) the differences become smaller as it rises so it becomes dominated by noise, (2) it overvalues the last few years of life compared to the rest of a life, and (3) expectancy is highly dependent on how it is calculated along with parameters such as input factors, similar to those that you dislike! In summary: intuition can often be a very poor substitute for research, and before relying on your intuition it is a good idea to look at the basics.

bootsmann 4y ago

Thing with this is that causality is so much harder to prove so any type of evidence-based policy is reduced to stabbing around in the dark hoping that the odds of the next happiness poll are not diluted by some random corruption scandal. The whole point of having measurable metrics and models is that they allow the use of the scientific method in policy making, whilst asking random people in the street might just get different answers whether you are asking them during or after their lunch break.

makeitdouble 4y ago
It’s the usual tension between an easy measure of something highly misleading and a harder to measure actually meaningful index. IMO going the easier route invariably brings along many other dangerous shortcuts. For instance here you mention “scientific method” for GDP when the measure in itself isn’t that reliable: what fits inside GDP isn’t fixed nor objective, and a lot of decisions happens upon survey. We have countries (most countries ?) regularly reshaping how they measure GDP to fit the narrative they need.
TheDong 4y ago
> causality is so much harder to prove [...] The whole point of having measurable metrics and models is that they allow the use of the scientific method in policy making A happiness index is hard to measure, agreed... but that's also not how GDP is used. Policy-makers will say "our research shows lowering taxes will do X and increase GDP", or "our research shows raising taxes will do Y and increase GDP". That happens now. I don't think we usually actually manage to tie an actual law or policy, as implemented, back to a change in GDP pretty much ever. It's not really the scientific method. What GDP gives us is a way to frame policy. If our number were "National Happiness", policies would be framed in terms of that. "Increasing taxes lets us make this work better, and increases happiness" and "Decreasing taxes gives people more money, which increases happiness". The same policies, but framed differently, and with different arguments as a result. That framing seems better to me, and how measurable and "scientific" it is seems like it would barely change.
- gruez 4y ago

Foofoobar12345 4y ago

Having visited Bhutan and spent a considerable amount of time there, I've noticed the locals aren't that much happier than most other places in the world. It's difficult to be happy when you have to constantly worry about how to put food on the table. I've gotten swindled enough times in Bhutan, however not as much as in certain "shit-hole" cities that I shall not name. The whole "GNH" concept was created by McKinsey, contracted by Bhutan - I know the leads on that project. While it does bring in some level of national identity to rally around, I think the primary benefit it brings is in marketing. There are some meditation centers in Bhutan that charge more than $5K/day, targeted towards the extremely rich who have lost a sense of peace in their pursuit of wealth. This, of course, is a grand con - there's no happiness you're going to find in Bhutan that you can't find in your immediate surroundings. New Zealand, on the other hand, I feel is doing a lot better. There's a general acceptance that communing with nature is important, while at the same time, they readily embrace modern comforts and continue building their economy. They're also attempting to build a better way to interact with natives and are creating programs such as EHF (ehf.org) to attempt to tackle the grand planet-wide problems, with impact as a focus. True impact is impossible to measure with just any one number. Anyone who attempts to put a number to this will run into the trouble of that number getting gamed.

la64710 4y ago
Very well articulated. Thanks for sharing.
gruez 4y ago
>The whole "GNH" concept was created by McKinsey, contracted by Bhutan - I know the leads on that project. source? I searched around couldn't find anything resembling that. The closest I found was one source[1] which stated the king of Bhutan used the phrase "Gross National Happiness" in a 1971 speech, and that the country paid McKinsey $9M for a report in 2009[2]. [1] https://publicism.info/economics/invention/10.html https://publicism.info/economics/invention/10.html [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bhutan/modernizing-bhutan-questions-where-happiness-lies-idUKTRE5BH03420091218 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bhutan/modernizing-bhutan...
parabyl 4y ago