Yeah, cause is hard. I spent too long trying to find the actual survey(s).
Maybe I'm just being dense and it's staring me in the face. Anyway, I did find
this:
https://news.gallup.com/file/poll/146822/Healthways_UKWellbeing_Questions_en-UK_03-17-11_td.pdf
Your mileage may vary (YMMV). But when I read those questions, I think they're
only answerable by people with some pretty tightly shared (conservative) values.
-----------------
"Now, please think about yesterday, from the morning until the end of the day.
Think about where you were, what you were doing, who you were with and how you felt.
Were you treated with respect all day yesterday? Did you smile or laugh a lot
yesterday? Did you learn or do something interesting yesterday?
"Did you have enough energy to get things done yesterday?
"Did you experience the following feelings during A LOT OF THE DAY yesterday? How
about enjoyment, physical pain, worry, sadness, stress, anger, happiness?"
------------------
I'm almost never "treated with respect" ... and I largely don't *want* to be "treated with
respect". What does that even mean? I laugh out loud maybe once a week, at best. I learn something
interesting every day, several times per day. I can't even imagine ever answering "no" to that
question. I've been in pain every minute of every day since I was 14. Yadda yadda. It feels to me like only
people who sit safely in their sconces could even parse these questions, much less answer them in a stable
way ... like rearranging the deck chairs ...
But *that* it's adversarial is pretty cool. I had a great conversation with a DEI expert
at Google the other day. We talked about the different RI techniques and tried to take
"diversity" seriously, e.g. entropy and variation. Contrasting the RI for
Claude and GPT (she was mum about RI for Bard 8^D) allowed us to consider co-evolutionary
AI safety trajectories over time and the pros and cons of agonism.
On 4/20/23 09:37, Marcus Daniels wrote:
The Bay Area is interesting in that there are some clear tiers. There are
areas with retired NIMBYs that can continue their way of living indefinitely
thanks to Proposition 13 which limits the rate of growth of property taxes.
They own their homes where real estate is very valuable. The main task for
them is to keep outsiders away. As they get older, they can move out of state
or into assisted living and probably be ok. Increasingly tech people are
buying these properties and moving to much higher property tax burdens as the
assessments go up. Even though they have much higher salaries than the
previous generation their costs are much higher too. Meanwhile there are
poorer people in cities farther out that commute in, sometimes long distances.
They somehow absorb the escalation in the price of everything. Here I think
less money means more misery, and more money means securing the nicest, safest
places to live. The very high salaried may find they have pushed to hard into
work they really care nothing about, or work they deep down know causes harm.
That could also lead to burnout.
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2023 7:38 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: [FRIAM] runaway happiness _and_ Hail Satan
Income and emotional well-being: A conflict resolved
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2208661120
Do larger incomes make people happier? Two authors of the present paper have
published contradictory answers. Using dichotomous questions about the
preceding day, [Kahneman and Deaton, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107,
16489–16493 (2010)] reported a flattening pattern: happiness increased steadily
with log(income) up to a threshold and then plateaued. Using experience
sampling with a continuous scale, [Killingsworth, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
118, e2016976118 (2021)] reported a linear-log pattern in which average
happiness rose consistently with log(income). We engaged in an adversarial
collaboration to search for a coherent interpretation of both studies. A
reanalysis of Killingsworth’s experienced sampling data confirmed the
flattening pattern only for the least happy people. Happiness increases
steadily with log(income) among happier people, and even accelerates in the
happiest group. Complementary nonlinearities contribute to the overall
linear-log relationship. We then explain why Kahneman and Deaton overstated the
flattening pattern and why Killingsworth failed to find it. We suggest that
Kahneman and Deaton might have reached the correct conclusion if they had
described their results in terms of unhappiness rather than happiness; their
measures could not discriminate among degrees of happiness because of a ceiling
effect. The authors of both studies failed to anticipate that increased income
is associated with systematic changes in the shape of the happiness
distribution. The mislabeling of the dependent variable and the incorrect
assumption of homogeneity were consequences of practices that are standard in
social science but should be questioned more often. We flag the benefits of
adversarial collaboration.
--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
