Is Measuring Happiness a Viable Goal?

[moving finger]

From Wikipedia :

Gross National Happiness (GNH) is an attempt to define quality of life in more holistic and psychological terms than Gross National Product.

The term was coined by Bhutan's King Jigme Singye Wangchuck in 1972. It signalled his commitment to building an economy that would serve Bhutan's unique culture based on Buddhist spiritual values. Like many worthy moral goals it is somewhat easier to state than to achieve, nonetheless, it serves as a unifying vision for the Five Year planning process and all the derived planning documents that guide the economic and development plans to the country.

While conventional development models stress economic growth as the ultimate objective, the concept of GNH is based on the premise that true development of human society takes place when material and spiritual development occur side by side to complement and reinforce each other. The four pillars of GNH are the promotion of equitable and sustainable socio-economic development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment, and establishment of good governance.

Is the definition and measurement of Happiness (either individual or national) a feasible objective?

What do forum members consider to be the necessary and sufficient conditions for Happiness (either individual or national)?

How would we go about establishing a "Happiness Index" whereby we could evaluate the "happiness health" of individual social groups or nations?

Is the pursuit of Happiness (either individual or national) more worthwhile, more satisfying and ultimately more rewarding than the pursuit of purely material (eg financial/economic) objectives?

Best Regards

 

[ShawnD]

Is the definition and measurement of Happiness (either individual or national) a feasible objective?

What do forum members consider to be the necessary and sufficient conditions for Happiness (either individual or national)?

How would we go about establishing a "Happiness Index" whereby we could evaluate the "happiness health" of individual social groups or nations?

Is the pursuit of Happiness (either individual or national) more worthwhile, more satisfying and ultimately more rewarding than the pursuit of purely material (eg financial/economic) objectives?

Happiness isn't hard to measure. Simply ask somebody to rate their life from 1-10. It could easily be slapped onto the end of census forms.

The conditions for happiness are not a mystery either since it has been studied to death what causes happiness. The biggest one is love (partnership), followed by a feeling of importance. The importance one is rather vague and can be caused by numerous things such as doing great things in the past (scored the winning goal in the hockey finals), working towards something great (designing the space shuttle), or simply having people rely you (being a parent).

The persuit of happiness is probably a better idea than the persuit of wealth. Just as an example America is a wealthy country but it doesn't look like sales of antidepressant medication will slow down any time soon. What does that tell you about the quality of life?

 

[moving finger]

Happiness isn't hard to measure. Simply ask somebody to rate their life from 1-10. It could easily be slapped onto the end of census forms.

Yes, this is one way to measure it. Similarly, we could measure "wealth" by asking people whether they thought they were wealthy on a scale of 1-10. Do you believe this would give us an accurate picture of wealth distribution around the world?

The conditions for happiness are not a mystery either since it has been studied to death what causes happiness. The biggest one is love (partnership), followed by a feeling of importance. The importance one is rather vague and can be caused by numerous things such as doing great things in the past (scored the winning goal in the hockey finals), working towards something great (designing the space shuttle), or simply having people rely you (being a parent).

You admit it is "rather vague" . In fact the necessary conditions for happiness are far from straightforward. There are a multitude of factors including many chemical, genetic, psychological, social, environmental, health, behavioural, all influencers of happiness. The list of factors which influence happiness is an extremely long one.

The persuit of happiness is probably a better idea than the persuit of wealth. Just as an example America is a wealthy country but it doesn't look like sales of antidepressant medication will slow down any time soon. What does that tell you about the quality of life?

It seems to me that if one must choose between pursuit of happiness and pursuit of wealth (ie if the two were mutually exclusive) then it would be irrational to pursue wealth. I believe the main reason why people DO pursue wealth is because they believe wealth will also bring them happiness.

Best Regards

 

[DaveC426913]

Sounds like fertile soil for a PF poll to me.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Note that Jefferson didn't say we had a right to be happy (he was to have many sorrows in his own life, like the early deaths of his wife and daughter). He said we have the right to pursue happiness, and that's very much a different question.

How did the King of Bhutan deal with the plain fact that it often happens that one person's happiness is contradictory to that of another person? Algebraic sum? A wash? That would be the assumption of the term Gross. Did Ken Lay deserve to be happy at the cost of his investors being unhapppy? Was the whole Enron scandal a happiness wash, with offsetting values?

 

[DaveC426913]

How did the King of Bhutan deal with the plain fact that it often happens that one person's happiness is contradictory to that of another person?

I think that's the idea. A happiness reading would be high if a population had found a way to make happiness a postive sum game, as opposed to a zero sum game.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think that's the idea. A happiness reading would be high if a population had found a way to make happiness a postive sum game, as opposed to a zero sum game.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary..." Pretty thinking but not for real.

 

[DaveC426913]

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary..." Pretty thinking but not for real.

Well... there's a lot of grey area wherein many people can be happy I think.

Just because you're working for The Man and making him "happy", doesn't mean you are "unhappy".

 

[loseyourname]

I would say that http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/320373-1.html provides a gleaming model of how to make both the capitalists and the workers happy.

 

[Reshma]

This one is from Netscape News.

If you have been reading the news last Wednesday, according to a new "happy planet index (HPI)" published by the UK-based New Economics Foundation (NEF), the happiest place on Earth is the island nation in the Western Pacific named Vanuatu. Never heard of it? Me, as well.

I was taken aback at how first-world countries like the United States could land at 150 out of 178 countries. Even industrialized nations, most of them, did not make it to the top 50. Germany only ranked 81st, Japan 95th, Canada 111th, the United Kingdom 108th, France 129th, and Russia 172nd. These are nations that showed high levels of resource consumption.

The countries that scored well showed that achieving long, happy lives without over-straining the planet's resources is very feasible. In Vanuatu for instance, people, roughly 200,000, live simply and happily even those who have little or no money. The poor never go hungry because they could always grow the food that they need on their fertile lands. Land is a big part of their culture.

The island of Vanuatu represents the efficiency with which nations must convert the Earth's finite resources into well-being (long and happy lives) experienced by their citizens. The index shows that it is possible to produce high levels of well-being without excessive consumption of the Earth's resources. Vanuatu is followed by Columbia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Panama, Cuba, Honduras, Guatemala, Salvador and Saint Vincent. It was observed that population of most South American countries are satisfied with their lives.

Congo, Burundi, Swaziland and Zimbabwe are the unhappiest nations of the world and they were placed to 178th place in the index.

The index uses the following indicators:
1. Ecological footprint — whether the environment can meet the demands of the country and other countries it supplies. For example, a banana plantation in Costa Rica won't necessarily be included as part of that country's ecological footprint, but will be part of the footprint of the country that consumes the bananas.
2. Life satisfaction — self-reported estimates of how satisfied people are with their lives overall.
3. Life expectancy — life expectancy rates of each country.

Check out this list of http://news.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/07/15/happy-planet-index-happiness-is-made-of/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsalaswildthoughts.

 

[loseyourname]

That report seems a little misleading in using ecological footprint. Of course that explains why industrialized, net consuming nations scored so low, but it has nothing to do with the happiness of their citizens. One can consume much more than the landmass of one's country will be able to sustain long into the future and still be quite happy.

 

[Mickey]

Conventional economic models do not stress economic growth as the ultimate objective.

Probably the greatest fear of economists is when markets grow too quickly. A large upward change in prosperity means price instability, which shocks consumption, saving, inventories, causing uncertainty in just about everything. The US Fed purposefully enacts recessionary measures when they feel this sharp growth is occurring.

The ultimate objective from an economist's point of view, it would seem, is stability. So the measure of GDP, ironically, helps economists determine whether there is "too much" growth happening, and is not used as a scorecard.

 

[moving finger]

One can consume much more than the landmass of one's country will be able to sustain long into the future and still be quite happy.

yes... but let's just hope that not all nations do the same!

Best Regards

 

[kmarinas86]

Happiness is good for health - if it makes you happy then it is good for your health. There are things that we get and respond to as though it makes us happy, when in actuality it makes us more sick. Such actions, which have the illusion of giving us happiness increase scarcity, rather than producing opposite - abundance. This is called consuming beyond the means which you able to maintain without depriving yourself of good health.

Unhappy:
[itex]consumption>means(good\ health)[/itex]

Happy:
[itex]consumption<=means(good\ health)[/itex]

Desirable dimensions. Popular inventions often try to maximize some of the following properties.

[itex]\frac{m}{kg}[/itex]

The less you have to carry to reach a destination. (inverse of linear mass density)

[itex]\frac{m}{s}[/itex]

The less time that has to pass while reaching a destination. (inverse of dispersion)

[itex]\frac{m}{J}[/itex]

The less energy you need to get somewhere. (inverse of force)

[itex]\frac{kg}{s}[/itex]

The more that can be moved in a given time. (inverse of "cooking time")

[itex]\frac{kg}{J}[/itex]

The more mass that can be operated on per energy cost. (inverse of helicity and CAPE)

[itex]\frac{s}{J}[/itex]

The more time per energy expended. (inverse of power)

Such inventions prefer certain properties in the following order:
[itex]m>kg>s>J[/itex]

In otherwords, a greater reap-to-sow ratio. We are lazy and are happy when our needs are met with minimal effort. We value distance over mass, mass over time, and time over energy.

 

[DaveC426913]

In otherwords, a greater reap-to-sow ratio.

So, if we eliminated all pork from our lives, the denominator would approach zero, resulting in our happiness tending towards infinity.

Maybe the Jews are right afterall...

 

[Mk]

Yes, this is one way to measure it. Similarly, we could measure "wealth" by asking people whether they thought they were wealthy on a scale of 1-10. Do you believe this would give us an accurate picture of wealth distribution around the world?

But these are two different kinds of questions. Happiness is something individual, but wealth is based on other people. Wealth needs a reference frame, but happiness does not.

 

[physics girl phd]

We are generally a social species... so I'd say they both wealth and happiness need reference frames. A sociology study said that getting married (to the right person of course) on average yields about the same amount of happiness as earning an extra $70k/year (the study was referenced in Scientific American, which I don't always pay attention to (Mom sends it to me), but I'd just gotten engaged at the time... to a social theorist http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000EC8FA-800F-13F3-800F83414B7F0101.)

I also think everyone does 1-10 scales differently so it isn't really a great idea, eq, ask a hospital clerk about the 1-10 pain scale when people check into the ER. Some people that can't walk say they are "fine" while someone else is screaming over a jammed finger. (I say 10 is uncontrollable screaming vomiting or bowel movements) -- that's enough to riun a day.