Re: [xmca] established fact: x per cent of people are happy

So am I right that this paper argues that stupid as
self-reporting of mental states may be, it is better than
conventional choice theory? They even talk about people's
"perception of their experience." Wow! Long live the homunculus!

One that always makes me laugh is whenever there is a
scandal about advertising of some kind, the journalists go
out into the streets and ask the punters if they are
influenced by advertising. Surprise, surprise, the result is
always 100% "no."

Interesting to read that there is currently an explosion of
these happiness surveys and their scientific credibility. I
thought Amartya Sen has done a pretty good job on this one.
Rather than using Sen's classic example of the Indian beggar
who sleeps on a wet concrete floor every night, but has just
laid some fresh straw, I decided to do a survey myself. My
partner was 3 years ago an attractive, gregarious, smoking,
drinking, eating butterfly who had never even had a headache
in 50 years. Then she had a stroke. She can't eat, let alone
smoke or drink, can hardly talk or walk, doesn't go out and
is in almost constant pain. I just asked her if she's happy.
Answer "yes." I don't deny that that tells me something. And
I was pleased to hear it, too. Answers to researchers'
questions are objective data. But it is nonsense to think
that these words reflect observations of a person's own
state of consciousness.

Oh, and I'm happy too.

Thanks for the paper David. I will study it with more
liesure shortly.

Andy

David Preiss wrote:
> Dear Andy,
>
> This paper by Daniel Kahneman and Alan Krueger addresses your question,
> I think:
>
> Developments in the Measurement
> of Subjective Well-Being
> Daniel Kahneman and Alan B. Krueger
> Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 20, Number 1—Winter 2006 —Pages
> 3–24
>
> http://www.krueger.princeton.edu/PDF%20of%20Kahneman%20Krueger%20paper.pdf
>
> According to these authors, self reported measures may be not that bad,
> after all.
>
> David
>
>
> On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:44 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>
>> I heard another one of those silly reports on the radio just now.
>> Never mind what it was about, but it reported that x% of people who
>> did y are happy, whilst of who didn't, only z% are happy, and the
>> reporter went on to refer to it as an "established fact" that x made
>> people happy. This "established fact" was gained from people filling
>> out survey forms, "checking all the boxes" and returning them in the
>> mail.
>>
>> It is over 100 years, isn't it, since mainstream, positivist science
>> (let alone real science) rejected self-reporting of mental states as a
>> legitimate way of doing psychology. How come it's still going on? Is
>> this taught at universities, or is it just marketing firms moving in
>> on the territory?
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
>> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov, Ilyenkov
>> $20 ea
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> David Preiss
> ddpreiss@me.com
> http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
>
>

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
Ilyenkov $20 ea
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca