Comments on: A Total Failure According to Its Own Standards? Give Me a Dozen! http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/07/12/a-total-failure-according-to-its-own-standards-give-me-a-dozen/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Dave Jilk http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/07/12/a-total-failure-according-to-its-own-standards-give-me-a-dozen/#comment-6092 Dave Jilk Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:19:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=761#comment-6092 Apparently the Kingdom of Bhutan is taking this very seriously. They have a measure called GNH (Gross National Happiness) which replaces GNP. Of course, they actually have no way to measure it yet. Entertaining article in Technology Review: <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/08/issue/feature_wise.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/08/issue/feature_wise.asp</a> Apparently the Kingdom of Bhutan is taking this very seriously. They have a measure called GNH (Gross National Happiness) which replaces GNP. Of course, they actually have no way to measure it yet. Entertaining article in Technology Review:

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/08/issue/feature_wise.asp

]]> By: Bill Korner http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/07/12/a-total-failure-according-to-its-own-standards-give-me-a-dozen/#comment-6091 Bill Korner Wed, 20 Jul 2005 22:38:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=761#comment-6091 She does not say that Layard's theory fails by its own standards. She does not even say that Layard himself subscribes to the "thermostat view". Her own view, moreover, seems to be "positivist psychology" requires using a measurable concept of happiness and that, to the extent you really buy that, there is evidence that people's happiness level does not change dramatically through their lifetimes. If there is any fault in that paragraph you cite, it would seem to be her assumption that thermostats (pace the theory) would hold steady AT THE SAME LEVEL after what you style "frighteningly ill-liberal social engineering". From all we know about the thermostat theory based on her review, it seems a likely possibility that they would hold steady at a higher (or lower) level depending on the quality of the legislation. And I suspect that none of us (Will, I, or Ms. Tavris) are especially partial to the philosophical (as opposed to operative scientific) view of happiness that characterizes it as a hedonic states subject to thermostatic measurment. (Also note that thermostats measure, but the function she descrbes seems to be more regulatory -- i.e. anti-manic/depressive -- in nature.) For someone with a modernized Aristotilian view of happiness, in which H has a lot to do with one's activity in his or her polity, the analysis in her article seems appealing (not shallow) even if you disagree with the "statist" particulars. She does not say that Layard’s theory fails by its own standards. She does not even say that Layard himself subscribes to the “thermostat view”. Her own view, moreover, seems to be “positivist psychology” requires using a measurable concept of happiness and that, to the extent you really buy that, there is evidence that people’s happiness level does not change dramatically through their lifetimes.

If there is any fault in that paragraph you cite, it would seem to be her assumption that thermostats (pace the theory) would hold steady AT THE SAME LEVEL after what you style “frighteningly ill-liberal social engineering”. From all we know about the thermostat theory based on her review, it seems a likely possibility that they would hold steady at a higher (or lower) level depending on the quality of the legislation.

And I suspect that none of us (Will, I, or Ms. Tavris) are especially partial to the philosophical (as opposed to operative scientific) view of happiness that characterizes it as a hedonic states subject to thermostatic measurment. (Also note that thermostats measure, but the function she descrbes seems to be more regulatory — i.e. anti-manic/depressive — in nature.)

For someone with a modernized Aristotilian view of happiness, in which H has a lot to do with one’s activity in his or her polity, the analysis in her article seems appealing (not shallow) even if you disagree with the “statist” particulars.

]]> By: Bill Korner http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/07/12/a-total-failure-according-to-its-own-standards-give-me-a-dozen/#comment-6089 Bill Korner Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=761#comment-6089 She does not say that Layard's theory fails by its own standards. She does not even say that Layard himself subscribes to the "thermostat view". Her own view, moreover, seems to be "positivist psychology" requires using a measurable concept of happiness and that, to the extent you really buy that, there is evidence that people's happiness level does not change dramatically through their lifetimes. If there is any fault in that paragraph you cite, it would seem to be her assumption that thermostats (pace the theory) would hold steady AT THE SAME LEVEL after what you style "frighteningly ill-liberal social engineering". From all we know about the thermostat theory based on her review, it seems a likely possibility that they would hold steady at a higher (or lower) level depending on the quality of the legislation. And I suspect that none of us (Will, I, or Ms. Tavris) are especially partial to the philosophical (as opposed to operative scientific) view of happiness that characterizes it as a hedonic states subject to thermostatic measurment. (Also note that thermostats measure, but the function she descrbes seems to be more regulatory -- i.e. anti-manic/depressive -- in nature.) For someone with a modernized Aristotilian view of happiness, in which H has a lot to do with one's activity in his or her polity, the analysis in her article seems appealing (not shallow) even if you disagree with the "statist" particulars. She does not say that Layard’s theory fails by its own standards. She does not even say that Layard himself subscribes to the “thermostat view”. Her own view, moreover, seems to be “positivist psychology” requires using a measurable concept of happiness and that, to the extent you really buy that, there is evidence that people’s happiness level does not change dramatically through their lifetimes.

If there is any fault in that paragraph you cite, it would seem to be her assumption that thermostats (pace the theory) would hold steady AT THE SAME LEVEL after what you style “frighteningly ill-liberal social engineering”. From all we know about the thermostat theory based on her review, it seems a likely possibility that they would hold steady at a higher (or lower) level depending on the quality of the legislation.

And I suspect that none of us (Will, I, or Ms. Tavris) are especially partial to the philosophical (as opposed to operative scientific) view of happiness that characterizes it as a hedonic states subject to thermostatic measurment. (Also note that thermostats measure, but the function she descrbes seems to be more regulatory — i.e. anti-manic/depressive — in nature.)

For someone with a modernized Aristotilian view of happiness, in which H has a lot to do with one’s activity in his or her polity, the analysis in her article seems appealing (not shallow) even if you disagree with the “statist” particulars.

]]> By: Dave Jilk http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/07/12/a-total-failure-according-to-its-own-standards-give-me-a-dozen/#comment-6090 Dave Jilk Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=761#comment-6090 Apparently the Kingdom of Bhutan is taking this very seriously. They have a measure called GNH (Gross National Happiness) which replaces GNP. Of course, they actually have no way to measure it yet. Entertaining article in Technology Review: <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/08/issue/feature_wise.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/08/issue/feature_wise.asp</a> Apparently the Kingdom of Bhutan is taking this very seriously. They have a measure called GNH (Gross National Happiness) which replaces GNP. Of course, they actually have no way to measure it yet. Entertaining article in Technology Review:

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/08/issue/feature_wise.asp

]]>