5 ms·
Lets forget the standard problems with measuring happiness and comparing it between different populations. There are issues there, but lets pretend like thats a
by aggronn 14y ago
Lets forget the standard problems with measuring happiness and comparing it between different populations. There are issues there, but lets pretend like thats an accepted, valid practice that distills real truth. We're also going to pretend that people are completely honest when they fill these surveys out. What about some of these examples they use?
The chocolate example: The conclusion completely ignores the utility of having had chocolate on each day before the end of the week. If the result, that the marginal utility of a piece of chocolate a week later was less for people who had a lot of chocolate in between, surprised you, you've forgotten what marginal utility is. Do I need to really mention what's wrong with this comparison? Do people only enjoy chocolate on the weekend?
The children with goldfish: Imagine you earned a salary in NY strip steak as part of an experiment. Would you consider that experiment useful in drawing conclusions about money and utility or happiness?
The money in an envelope example: I'm not going to say anything about this, because I said in my intro that I'm going to ignore self-reporting bias caused by confronting someone about whether they acted ethically or not. (hint: if someone trusts you to do something and you don't do it, you may be less happy than someone who did do it--especially it is consistent with social expectations).
I don't mean to dispute the point the article is making, but honestly, after seeing the substance, I'm less inclined to believe it than I was beforehand.
- sophacles 14y agoWhen I read the article, I suspected there may be some ideological (mis)uses of the content. It seems to me that there will be a very positive reaction to it from who are more collectivist/socialist/liberal oriented, and a negative one from the indivudualist/objectivist/conservative oriented. Making some (potentially incorrect) assumptions from your language (choice of terms largely), I would guess you are in the later group. I think that the strong potential for ideological differences to erupt in a flame war in this thread is high, and therefore want to suggest perhaps we look at the actual research mentioned before attacking it as reported in the New York Times (a place we largely deride for awful science reporting in most other cases), rather than make assumptions about it based on our ideological gut reactions to the conclusions.
- aggronn 14y agoI would contend that the piece was inherently ideological, and the editors saw where it was problematic. It is the sunday opinions page. I reckon its purpose is to solicit sultry conversation.
- HolyHaddock 14y ago> I'm less inclined to believe it than I was beforehand. I'm not arguing with anything you said, and agree the article provided weak (if not no) evidence for the idea that increasing money has marginal utility for happiness. What evidence did it provide that has convinced you that increasing money doesn't have marginal utility for happiness?
- aggronn 14y agoCould you rephrase the question? I'm having trouble understanding your meaning.