Submitted by Ma3Ke4Li3 t3_106k3wb in philosophy
Abstract:
Many social scientists have become interested in the possibility of studying happiness (i.e. subjective well-being) scientifically. This has motivated many individual studies but also the large and much-reported World Happiness Report. This movement has been criticised by two strands of philosophers. On the one hand, there are those who criticise underlying welfarism. On the other hand, others have criticised the field for studying a topic (“happiness”) that is impossible to study rigorously.
Anna Alexandrova argues that the latter concern is justifiable, but only partially so. There is no clear reason why the kinds of measures used by “happiness scientists” could not be used rigorously (e.g. asking people about their life satisfaction). However, happiness and well-being have many meanings in different contexts, and it is problematic to collapse all these pluralistic measures under one overarching “happiness” variable. Therefore, one can support the general project of the “science of happiness” but remain sceptical about single-variable such as “world’s happiest country” or the WELBY metrics adopted by the UK government.
However, most “science of happiness” reports make the questionable assumption that all of these metrics can be used to gauge a single underlying “happiness” (e.g. “what is the happiest country in the world?”) Instead, we need a pluralistic approach, where scientists tackle more specific questions around topics that fall under the concepts of happiness and wellbeing.
I dont see how breaking down happiness into different kinds and metrics will allow them to make it any less subjective. We can not truly measure anothers experience of happiness any better than we can measure their experience of the taste of mustard. We can learn how to trigger the experiences, but we cant actually study the qualia from the outside.
And yet I guarantee you that chefs and condiment manufacturers alike do have ideas on how to make a good mustard.
We have one standard for measuring happiness- asking people if they're happy. It's essentially the same one we have for assessing pain. At that point, it's just a matter of figuring out what makes people, when able to freely say, say they're happy more than not.
Really well put with the mustard analogy.
You don't need access to another person's qualia, to make reasonable judgements on happiness. Can you make perfect assessments of their happiness... No. But i don't think people can make perfect assessments of their own happiness even with their qualia.
Nobody is seeking perfect understanding of each persons subjective happiness, the same way a chef ain't seeking perfect understanding of every single persons subjective taste pallette. That doesnt mean you cant find patterns and techniques that tend to better peoples experience, and understanding the type of person it works for...And thats extremely valuable.
We can study the Qualia of others. Even if we cant experience others qualia exactly as they do, that does not mean we cannot make inductive assessments about it. This is the same mistake people make with the problem of induction... we cannot have perfect true knowledge using induction... but that does not mean we cannot possess knowledge and study things... it just means we can't have perfect knowledge, capital T truth. Yes, we cannot have perfect knowledge of someone's qualia of happiness... but thats meaningless since nothing in science claims or seeks that.
> But i don't think people can make perfect assessments of their own happiness even with their qualia.
That is, though, about as good as it's going to get.
Presumably few would say they're unhappy when they're somehow secretly happy. Some more might say they're happy out of a belief they're supposed to be happy. Despite that, the person describing their own qualia has to be better than anyone else at knowing whether that assessment is right or not.
I agree with you 100% im basically adding on to refuting klosnj11
Thats about as good as it gets. Maybe you could argue machines measuring neurotransmitters can be better sometimes, but the point is that you dont need access directly to someone subjective qualia to make good, helpful, meaningful scientific assessments of happiness. Meaningful inductive assessments can be made through self reporting and other assessment methods.
Klosnj11 is conflating science seeking general and useful understandings of happiness to a completely objective understanding of happiness. Just like the mustard manufacturer can study taste to improve it generally, but doesn't claim to objectively perfect taste.
> Maybe you could argue machines measuring neurotransmitters can be better sometimes,
Possibly not, considering what we know of how neurotransmitter-increasing medications work. They don't cause an end to depression immediately after raising neurotransmitter levels. And, ironically, suicide risk goes up shortly after starting the meds.
No doubt. It was kinda besides the point as i said. I was just playing devils advocate as I'm sure there's at least some situation or person where measuring neurotransmitters is more helpful than self reporting. Also it can be helpful in addition to self reporting.
But i would generally agree self reporting is much more valuable.
I'd be curious how happiness researchers would rate my happiness since I'm in daily, almost constant low level pain that zaps my energy and my ability to experience the world of active people. I also feel shitty, physically often due to POTS. I've been sick for at least 35 years.
But I've got a bunch of challenging artistic pursuits I can do from bed or my house. I'm in a happy marriage, I have several close friends and my mood is good. I'm also free of most of my family who have been unsupported and even hostile since I fell ill.
The main factor that may have nothing to do with the rest is a good mood. I'm very lucky. I'm not sure I have anything to do with that except for eliminating as much stress from my life as I can.
I would think the person describing their own qualia would only be better than anyone else in describing it, but not making accurate assessments of their happiness (without taking time for introspection, at least).
But what does it really mean when they say they are happy? Is it the same as other people? The experience may be completely different, and we wouldnt know.
At least with pain, there are some near-instant biological responses we can measure for scale.
Chefs and coniment manufactures dont know how to make a "good mustard" as such a thing does not exist. They know how to make a mustard that appeals to the most customers. They know how to make a mustard that they feel compliments particular other flavors. They now how to make mustard that wont give you a stomach illness. But if there was a "good mustard" there wouldnt be so many varieties. People like different things. And how mustard tastes feom person to person is, in many ways, immeasurable and subjective.
[removed]
All of these measures need to be tied to something a little more concrete. I can imagine something along the lines of operationalising Max Neef's conception of human needs and satisfiers/unsatisfiers.
"Solve for Happy... " by Mo Gawdat.
Works for me.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments