Can We Measure Happiness?

"How can people possibly measure happiness?" I once thought, and I believe many people would ask the same. With the technology we have today, it is very easy to measure time, length, mass, temperature, etc. We have standardized units for them, and they can be objectively measured using tools. But happiness is a subjective property, and we do not have a "hedonimeter"/"happinometer" to measure our happiness. We do not even have a widely accepted definition of "happiness" in the scientific/academic community. So how is that possible? But it is possible, at least for many psychologists and other social scientists. 

The Life Satisfaction Survey Approach

Many researchers are interested in studying what makes people feel happy or how satisfied they are with their lives. The most common approach they use to collect data from the population is to ask them directly. They ask people to rate their lives. Within this approach, one of the widely used scales is the "Cantril ladder" (or "Cantril Scale"). The question is asked as follows:

Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time? (source: Gallup)

It could also be something similar but instead a 5-point scale or a 7-point scale. The point is to get people to recall their memories and judge how happy their lives are. This life satisfaction measurement, is often seen as an equivalent for the measurement of "happiness"/"well-being".

The Daily Emotions Record Approaches

Instead of asking people to make a judgement about their whole lives, another way to measure happiness is to collect the daily emotions (affects) of people. This could be using a mobile device or an app on the phone that would remind them to record their feelings/emotions every once a while throughout the day (known as "the Experience Sampling Method"); or, asking them to recall the events throughout the day and the feelings/emotions attached to them at the end of the day/the next day, similar to writing a diary (known as"the Day Reconstruction Method"). Researchers sometimes use these methods to collect people's daily feelings/emotions to see what activities contribute to the decrease/increase of emotional well-being, and also the frequency or the duration of those positive/negative states.

Scanning the Brain

A very different approach from the above is brain scanning (fMRI or PET). Scientists can use it to detect which brain region is associated with a certain emotion and sometimes the intensity of the emotion, but it has very little power to detect how "happy"/joyful/pleasant, etc. people are at that moment. And of course neither is it capable of telling how content/satisfied people are with their lives. Plus it is costly so it cannot be used on a big group of people.

Overall, the most widely used approach is to just ask individuals how they feel about their lives as a whole. One of the reasons why we know it works is just that we do see certain substantial patterns. Richer people and healthier people tend to be happier, the unemployed and socially isolated people tend to be less happy, etc.

Limitations

But how reliable is this approach? When I casually asked my friend the Cantril ladder question, my friend gave a 10 (which is very rare in the population). I let her explain and she told me, "Well I feel like I have everything already, and I have never had any big accident in my life, although it would be better if [...]" Then I immediately said, "It wouldn't be a 10 then if there is space to improve, would it?" She said, "then maybe 9?"

We should not be surprised to see this kind of error in the data. If this kind of error is distributed randomly and consistently in the sample, then it is not a problem. But are there cognitive biases that would distort the data? For example, would unhappy people tend to exaggerate how unhappy they are? This would not be surprising because we do know that human beings are naturally more sensitive towards the negative. In that case, a "4" would not really mean the half of 8.

According to the well-known psychologist Daniel Kahneman, the experiencing self is different from the remembering self (Kahneman, 2011, p. 377). How you remember things is different from how you experience them. The life satisfaction approach merely collects the memory data. Maybe you have had a much worse/better life (based on the experience self standard) and you just do not remember it.

In addition, "happiness"/satisfaction with life could be understood slightly differently in different cultures, and the meaning could be lost in the translation. How do we know we are measuring the same thing across all cultures?

So far, despite some of its limitations, this survey approach is probably the best we have today if we want to see collect happiness data from the population. We do have ways to measure one sense of happiness in a somewhat reliable way. The next question is: how should we utilize it? Should our governments start measuring the happiness of the citizens, like Bhutan? Stay tuned.

Reference:
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast, and Slow. New York, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

It is free to subscribe to this blog. Support me by following me on Facebook or Twitter. Cancel anytime as you wish.

How Would You Respond to Ben Shapiro's Argument about Taxes?

  (source: Wikimedia Commons)

"It's not moral to steal other people's wealth just because you are poorer than they are." - Ben Shapiro      

(source: Youtube | The Rubin Report)

In case you do not know him yet, Ben Shapiro is a popular conservative and libertarian political commentator who is embraced by the right because of his sharp arguments and knowledge. Whether you like him or not, you have to admit that he is intelligent and a good debater.

Just like many on the right, he disavows progressive taxes and extensive social welfare programs (which can be seen as an element of socialism and is embraced by the left). One of the core arguments that he relies on is: the government or other people have no moral right to his, Jeff Bezo's or anyone else's money. A democratic authorization of heavily taxing the rich and redistributing the wealth through welfare (e.g. healthcare, education, etc.) does not make it moral. If there are three people in the room, A and B vote to take away C's money, it is still not moral. It is just like theft. This is a strong argument. If you are for progressive taxes for social welfare programs, or you are just a fiscally conservative wanting to have some intellectual brainstorming, how would you counter that argument?

I am not going to argue for or against heavy taxes on the rich. But, since that I do not see many good counter arguments from the left, I just want to bring up an argument that I think could be a strong one. When Shapiro asks, "How is that moral?" To counter that argument, someone can argue from a utilitarian position and say the following:

If we want to talk about what is moral, then we will have to look at what maximizes social net benefit by minimizing suffering and maximizing gain in the society. If there are three people, A, B and C in the room, and A and B suffer from health problems and cannot afford the high costs of health care. Letting them suffer or die is not moral. Helping them is moral. If we know C is extremely rich, then we can use C's money to help A and B. We are not taking C's money to give A and B leisure. And we cannot rely on people's charity because it is not effective.

Why else is it moral? If in the next turn, some disaster occurs and C loses most of his money (which is not rare in reality), C will be able to receive temporary financial relief, health care or even career training from that pool of money. And if A and B have become more wealthy from the help from the last turn (i.e. they ended up living a healthy life and got educated), then they would have to contribute back to that pool of money. Everyone is equally entitled to welfare and equally obligated to contribute. 

We have to keep in mind that a dollar means something different to different people. $1000 means nothing to Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates, but it means a lot to a family that struggles for every meal. If we look beyond the numbers and look at the real intrinsic value behind the bills, we know that using the taxes collected from the rich in the right way can directly create a lot of extra social benefits and prevent more suffering. 

If people become healthier and more educated, then in the long run, we have more human capital in the country, and it in turn benefits everybody in the society, including the big corporations. 

Again, I am not arguing for or against anything, but here is the argument that I think could be a good counter.

By the way, because of how good he is at gathering support, I would not be surprised if he becomes the president one day.

It is free to subscribe to this blog. Support me by following me on Facebook or Twitter. Cancel anytime as you wish.

You Are Eating Too Much McDonalds: Under-consumption and Over-consumption

 (Photo by Gabriel Li)

Do you eat very little vegetables and fruits? Do you smoke or drink a lot? Do you not exercise? You know that is not good for you, right?

Sorry for sounding like your mom or grandma. This is to bring up one point: most of us do not choose the optimal or the "right" amount of consumption of goods/activities.

It is no surprise that many of us eat too little vegetables and fruits, exercise too little, drink too much sugary drinks, smoke or drink too much, etc. This is what I call "under-consumption" and "over-consumption". But this is something that is mostly ignored in mainstream economics.

Externalities

Economists talk about under-consumption and over-consumption a lot too. But it is usually about externality. When your neighbor grows some beautiful flowers in the front yard, that makes you happy. This is a positive externality because the flowers gives an external benefit. When many noisy sports cars and motorcycles drive through your neighborhood, that can be really annoying and frustrating. This is a negative externality because an external cost incurs. People who are not involved in the consumption or transaction benefit or suffer from that.

When something brings an external benefit to the society, in the perspective of the whole society, people tend to under-consume it because they may choose the level of consumption only by looking at their self-interest and neglect the external benefit. Your neighbor is not growing enough flowers. Similarly, when something brings an external cost to the society, in the perspective of the whole society, people tend to over-consume because they may choose the level of consumption only by looking at their self-interest and neglect the external cost. Those people are driving noisy sports car and motorcycles too much (if they should ever).

How about on the Individual Level?

But we should take the concept of under-consumption and over-consumption to another level. When it is clear that McDonald's is high in saturated fat, sodium, sugar, etc, of course you know you should not eat a lot of it. (Exactly how much is a lot is another question.) When it is clear that exercise is good for you, of course you should exercise. These things have a strong impact on your physical health and less directly, your mental health, and thus your overall well-being.

Willpower, Lord!

Mainstream economic theories tell us that people know what they want (often they don't), and they execute it. This is part of the basis of why many economists think or assume that people are rational. And this is basically like a huge rejection of psychology, or just common sense. Some psychologists and neuroscientists analogically argue that there are two (or more) selves in our mind. One self wants instant gratification, and one self wants long-term gratification.

Your instant gratification self wants to eat that cheeseburger, but your delayed gratification self tries to beat the other side and reminds you, "Hold on! You want to fit into those jeans again!" Your delayed gratification self wants to go for a run, but you instant gratification self just wants to stay on the couch. You are always fighting with yourself! Sometimes, your instant gratification self wins, and you are further away from your long-term goal. In other words, you often cannot help but consume too much of certain things, like cheeseburger or high-calorie foods, and consume too little of certain things, like exercise or fruits. These are not exceptions. They are systematic errors. (McGonigal, 2012)

If we take it to a higher level, looking at the society, we see that there are under-demands and over-demands. Individuals together demand too much McDonald's, and so the society as a whole demands too much of it, and McDonald's responds with more supply. This can be illustrated as below:

And individuals together may demand too little apples or broccoli:

Do We Know What We Want?

The above describes what it is like when we know what we want but can't do it. What if we just do not know what is good for us?

A husband tells his wife to go hiking together. His wife tells him to go by himself and that she wants to stay home and chill. The husband insists and tells her that she will like it. She gives up and thinks, "if I do this just one time, he won't bother me again anymore". So they go, and as it turns out, the breeze feels really good and the air is really fresh. She loves it. From then on, they go hiking together every once a while.

Some researchers (e.g. economists, psychologists, etc.) argue that we often do not know what is good for us or what makes us happier. In social science jargon, there is a difference between experienced utility and expected utility. As it turns out, we are not very good at predicting what makes us better off. We may think lying on the couch, watching Netflix gives us more joy, but hiking with our friends or spouse may actually do that. We may think we should sacrifice for higher income and more material goods by doing a job that gives us very low autonomy, but the fact could be that we would be happier with a job that gives us higher autonomy, less income and thus fewer material goods. We fail to realize how easily we adapt to certain things, like clothes, electronic gadgets, etc., and how much social connections make us happy. (Frey, 2008; Layard, 2005)

One often leads to the other one, because of opportunity cost. When you over-consume bacon or spam, you under-consume vegetables or fruits. When you over-consume Netflix (alone), you under-consume hiking with someone. The opportunity cost of watching Netflix s is the time you could spend somewhere else. You could use the time to socialize and that could be the best out of all alternatives. Some amount of watching Netflix or being alone is probably good for you, but once it exceeds that amount of time, that becomes over-consumption.

Some (especially economists) may say, "who are we to judge whether people are consuming the right amount of things? How can we possibly know better than the person themselves? If people choose to eat a lot of bacon, smoke a lot, that simply reveals their preference, like bacon over broccoli, smoking over not smoking, or even present over future."

The problem with that thinking is, it ignores the biology of humans. We naturally have impulse, weak self-control and lack future planning. "Don't think about what is going to happen in a year when you have to run away from the lions, look for berries and hunt rabbits every day", said evolution. And if there is meat to eat, why think twice about it? Why control your desire? Again, said evolution. But the mechanism that was once good for our ancestors is not good for us now. It leads to a future (tomorrow, next month, ten years later, etc.) that we do not like or regret.

And because we are a social animal, we naturally desire at least some social connections. If you become socially reclusive ("hikikomori"), I know that is not good for you and you are under-consuming social life. As humans we have a lot of common basic needs. You cannot just say "everyone is different" and deny that fact.

If you still insist that "even if someone chooses to eat nothing but a lot of bacon for three meals every day, which will predict they will have serious illnesses and die soon, it is simply their preference of present over future", there is nothing I can say in this article because that would be another topic.

Conclusion

We often fail to choose the right amount of consumption, in the perspective of increasing well-being/utility. We do not live in the world of economic theories where we naturally know how much and what to consume, and are capable of executing the decision. The main source of under-/over-consumption is the lack of willpower and ignorance.


- McGonigal, K. (2012). The Willpower Instinct: How Self-Control Works, Why It Matters, and What You Can Do to Get More of It. New York, New York: Avery.

- Frey, B.S. (2008). Happiness: A Revolution in Economics. The MIT Press. p.127

- Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. London, England: Penguin Group.

It is free to subscribe to this blog. Support me by following me on Facebook or Twitter. Cancel anytime as you wish.