Comments on: The Meaning Dodge

By: Pregnancy

Pregnancy — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 23:04:06 +0000

Well I know only one meaning of this dodge word. I found it many times in games especially and it mean avoidance or something similar. Here is another good example that a few games are making good also and not only bad as many people say.

By: Medela

Medela — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 06:58:28 +0000

Hey Freddie, we feel alike on this thing!

Lisa

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:26:44 +0000

What is all of this about? Why does any of this matter? Why should anyone have a problem with people wanting to study how often certain actions bring more happiness on the one hand, and on the other, why should we doubt a person who reports deriving happiness or a valued type of meaning from parenting or any other activity? Is this all just about natalist policies? If we concede that point, is there any issue here whatsoever?

By: DSL

DSL — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:19:24 +0000

I don't think there is any special problem with quantifying the value that people put on having children. You add up the values of the various things they give up in order to have children (income, leisure time, health, and so on) just like you would for any other good.

The problem here is just that a lot of people say that children pay off in terms of happiness, but happiness research isn't showing that. Perhaps this is because a lot of people have false expectations about what will make them happy (often the case). However, it also might be that a lot of people are using the term 'happiness' in a different way to happiness researchers (also often the case).

That would explain all the hand waving about 'meaning'. The hand wavers are really trying to say "well you might not get *that* kind of happiness out of having children, but there are still lots of other good things you get."

Meanwhile I'm curious about an entirely different point. Presumably we are all down with the idea that more money will make us happier. And we know that having children involves taking a huge financial hit. And apparently having children turns out to be a wash in terms of happiness, or perhaps a slight negative. Doesn't it follow that, ceteris paribus, having children will make you happier? It has to be adding enough happiness (perhaps nearly) make up for the huge financial loss.

By: Murali

Murali — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:07:40 +0000

Wil, a few points.

1. Happiness is not the only thing which is intrinsically valuable. There are other things like striving and struggling and acting and other experience independent stuff which is intrinsically valueable. I don't think I have to rehash Nozick's experience machine argument for everyone here right?

2. We may or may not be able to quantify how much we value these things. Given that we find a variety of things meaningful, is there any way to compare these things with eachother.

3. what is the use of these studies? None of us are the average person. The rationality of the action depends on how much the action satsifies your values/ meanings vis a vis other actions. Maybe if the science found a way to quantify how much we value various different kind of stuff, discovered how much different courses of action fulfilled those values, then weighted everything and churned out a reccomendation, you would have a much more quantified decision procedure.

4. Will you have to show how that a world where suh a procedure is used ubiquituously is actually a better state of affairs than one where it isnt.

By: Pithlord

Pithlord — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:05:52 +0000

Will,

I'd be interested in your take on Charles Murray's speech to the American Enterprise Institute. Here is a (notorious) quantifier employing the "meaning dodge" to defend politics you're sympathetic to.

If you are going to defend liberty, even when it comes in conflict with satisfaction, then don't you have to distinguish the good life from the pleasurable life?

John Stuart Mill tells you it's better to be Socrates unsatisfied than a pig satisfied. Are you saying Mill's "better" is just an arbitrary preference or that it is an arbitrary preference unless someone comes up with a way of measuring it?

By: Willy Wonka and the Gospel Factory | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Willy Wonka and the Gospel Factory | The League of Ordinary Gentlemen — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:59:06 +0000

[...] This idea of re-centering is how I think the Christian gospels are probably best understood. In original liberal theology (i.e. early 20th century theology) this was taken to mean that the Jesus preached about God and the Church preached about Jesus as God. In that sense, it is understood to be a false transformation. This notion is connected with the whole historical Jesus Quest and the attempt to get to the “real” Jesus away from tradition-myth and the rest. Whcih is itself a certain kind of classically liberal myth I would say, but that for another day. In short though, it’s (futilely) trying to route around subjectivity and intersubjectivity–something like quantifying happiness. [...]

By: E.D. Kain

E.D. Kain — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:10:32 +0000

Matt – excellent point.

By: Eric V

Eric V — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:55:00 +0000

I think what's more important here is the idea that meaning leads to purpose leads to motivation leads to action. I've consistently seen the vast majority of those who fail in life and are unhappy lack purpose. The real debate comes when discussing our individual and collective interpretation of purpose and whether that purpose serves the cause of “good” or “evil”. Charles Manson had purpose. So, most importantly for individuals and society is finding meaning and deriving purpose which motivates us to “do good”. That generic statement applies to all and it's up to us to figure out our own details.

By: Mike Gebert

Mike Gebert — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:14:01 +0000

Most of the things that provide meaning are hard. The fact that they are hard is part of what gives them meaning. If something's easy, it feels meaningless. Nevertheless, things that are hard are often frustrating and filled with irritation– see raising children, for one– and so we are forced to the view that what makes us happy is having achieved something meaningful which, by definition, made us unhappy most of the way.

Now measure that.