![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 31 to 55 of 55. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on August 6, 2006, at 5:44:10
In reply to Re: the pursuit of happiness vs contentment, posted by Estella on August 6, 2006, at 0:12:19
Twasn't me who did the studies on religion and happiness. I just happened to read a reference to them in a psych journal lately. I was speculating on why. If you disagree with the conclusions, you'll have to take it up with the researchers. Certainly I have no great faith in scientific inquiry of any sort, much less about something so subjective.
I've just been listening to "A Short History of Nearly Everything" and my faith in the scientific method is at an all time low. I suppose it's the best we've got.
Posted by Estella on August 6, 2006, at 11:04:07
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa » Jost, posted by Dinah on August 6, 2006, at 5:23:14
Whether there is a correlation between religion (I'm thinking christianity) and happiness is controversial. See for example:
> I believe it wasn't so far off field, since the availability of choice was proposed as the downfall of western society and the happiness therein. I happen to disagree.
I just meant to say that increased choices doesn't necessarily mean increased happiness. There is some evidence to show that past a certain number of choices... more choices seem to actually lead to a decrease in subjective happiness.
> I think I reject the concept that Western civilization and even materialism breeds unhappiness.It seems to breed a certain kind of unhappiness...
is happiness something you persue (seek)
or is happiness something you accept (acknowledge)
?
> There's no virtue in suffering. There's no romance in poverty.But what counts as suffering and what counts as poverty?
Those things can be relative...
Posted by Jost on August 6, 2006, at 15:00:24
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa » Jost, posted by Dinah on August 6, 2006, at 5:23:14
A probity that I salute.
If there is a downfall of Western Civilization, it will likely be caused by what caused the downfall of most civilizations-- some sort of decadence, arrogance, aggression, and coming up against a stronger, more ruthless enemy. Or a society's exhaustion of its natural resource base.
What causes the unhappiness of Western civilization, if it is greater than any other unhappiness? There is a fair correlation, I believe, between happiness and wealth, according to a study I saw recently. However, there are some countries where there's greater happiness without as great wealth as, say, the US. Can't remember which they were, maybe Norway, or Denmark, and another one.
But in general, happiness correlates with a society's wealth.
So I'm pretty sure, in fact, people are happier in the USA or Australia or Britain, or Germany than in Ruanda, or the Congo.
Community can be great, or oppressive. It provides support, a certain type of emotional sustenance, but exerts pressure for conformity to norms, sometimes destructively. I have ambivalent ideas about community-- but I'm pretty comfortable with Declan's approach.
Anyway, I was the convener of the conversation on coleslaw, so I am hereby chastened.
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 6, 2006, at 18:11:02
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Jost on August 6, 2006, at 15:00:24
> But in general, happiness correlates with a society's wealth.Does that mean the top 10% of the population of the USA have over 60% of the happiness?
That is the way the wealth is distributed...
I think we should be very careful indeed about correlating happiness with wealth...
Sure there is probably a threshold of meeting ones basic needs...
sure
but it is possible to get too much of a good thing
why is it that rich people seem about as f*cked up as the rest of us do you think?
money doesn't buy you happiness...
doesn't anyone believe this anymore?
Posted by Estella on August 6, 2006, at 18:12:54
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Estella on August 6, 2006, at 18:11:02
i wonder how happiness is measured...
self report?
hedonistic pleasure?
why should i care about happiness over contentment?
Posted by Phillipa on August 6, 2006, at 18:54:27
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Estella on August 6, 2006, at 18:11:02
Estella I do. Look at all the movie stars. And Donald Trump. Love Phillipa
Posted by Estella on August 6, 2006, at 19:24:36
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa » Estella, posted by Phillipa on August 6, 2006, at 18:54:27
sorry
Posted by Phillipa on August 6, 2006, at 20:32:10
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Estella on August 6, 2006, at 19:24:36
What are you sorry about? Love Phillipa
Posted by Jost on August 6, 2006, at 21:47:20
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Estella on August 6, 2006, at 18:11:02
Actually, the study can be argued either way ie that a country's wealth (esp. in terms of health care and education, as well as income) and happiness are correlated, and that a country's wealth is not predictive of the overall happiness of its population.
Health care is apparently the number one predictor of a society's happiness, but overall wealth of a country is often interdependent with that and education, so there's significant correlation
But that's not to say that there aren't happy people in all societies, or that poverty imposes suffering, or wealth assures happiness--
Anyway, this study is just one take on a complex question, which could be analyzed in different ways.
The results and some explanation is on the following site:
http://www.le.ac.uk/pc/aw57/world/sample.html
The USA is 23rd on the list, UK is 41, Rwanda is 163, and Ukraine is 179. China is 82, and Australia 26.
Denmark, Norway, and Austria are all very high; many countries in Africa do very badly, which also unfortunately, is not surprising.
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 7, 2006, at 1:50:42
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Jost on August 6, 2006, at 21:47:20
health / healthcare / education / formal education / wealth (dollar value) are seperate things.
for example:
http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Shores/9338/culture.htm
> But that's not to say that there aren't happy people in all societies...
indeed.
i guess we are measuring the western ideal of happiness (which oftern is highly correlated with material wealth). that tells us more about the western conception of happiness than anything else imo.
flourishing is related to happiness, sure.
but flourishing doesn't entail 10 brands of spaghetti sauce or a million dollar mansion...
Posted by Jost on August 7, 2006, at 13:57:08
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Estella on August 7, 2006, at 1:50:42
Estella, I have two thoughts about your comments on the happiness index, etc.
1. How else can we think about happiness, other than in our Western way, since we are members of a Western civilization?
2. Is it possible that post-structuralism, or post=modernism, or whatever, is itself a "Western" idea--
ie the idea of cultural relativism--or the notion that 'our" way of thinking about things is limited, not necessary, and culturally-conditoned, is itself much more a Western idea than anything else?
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 7, 2006, at 19:48:12
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa » Estella, posted by Jost on August 7, 2006, at 13:57:08
> Estella, I have two thoughts about your comments on the happiness index, etc.
> 1. How else can we think about happiness, other than in our Western way, since we are members of a Western civilization?We can learn about other cultures. About how they live (or lived) their lives, about the things that were important to them. About the things that made them happy yes, and content as well. Hence... My posting a link about Maori culture. What sorts of things did the American Indians want / need to be happy? How about tribes in Africa or in the Pacific Islands and so on and so forth. What do people in India consider one wants / needs in order to be happy / content? How about China?
It is a Western invention that formalised schooling, formalised medical care (where giving birth is considered a medical condition lol), and how many american dollars one has, and how many different varieties of spaghetti sauce one gets to pick from contribute significantly to happiness.
Witness the boom of therapy and psychiatric medication.
I'm just saying that we can learn a little about what humans need as humans by finding what is common to all cultures (what is pan-cultural) and it can loosen the grip on what the media tells us we must have in order to be happy...
> 2. Is it possible that post-structuralism, or post=modernism, or whatever, is itself a "Western" idea--Yep. But I think those arose out of feminism which is a significant change in a Western culture that used to be (and still is) fairly male dominated. But ideas that arose out of Western women who have been living in that Western culture under male domination for a number of years...
I wonder what people from Japan think about happiness and contentment?
How about Alaska?
> ie the idea of cultural relativism--or the notion that 'our" way of thinking about things is limited, not necessary, and culturally-conditoned, is itself much more a Western idea than anything else?
The more you learn about other cultures and consider things from their point of view...
The more you are in a position to evaluate similarities (thus what may well be universal to human beings) and differences (thus what is culturally specific)
This applies to the study of emotions as well...
Some emotions are pan-cultural (found in the majority of members across cultures). They are also displayed from a very early age (that is interesting, what does an infant need to be happy / content?).
Others vary considerably. The first are more likely to have a hard-wired biological basis, the second are more likely to play a social functional role. To be social constructs basically.
Posted by Dinah on August 7, 2006, at 20:43:12
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Estella on August 7, 2006, at 19:48:12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death
Childbirth was quite often a fatal condition before it was considered a medical condition. I consider it definitely a medically relevant condition.
Posted by Dinah on August 7, 2006, at 20:50:42
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Dinah on August 7, 2006, at 20:43:12
Posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 0:39:14
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Dinah on August 7, 2006, at 20:43:12
the medicalisation of childbirth...
the medicalisation of puberty...
the medicalisation of anatomy...women are men without a penis remember that?
medical language is still a bit odd in what it considers to be a 'sickness'.
people are defined as being in their prime when they are what? 18. lol. its all downhill from there, i wonder where that came from. what counts as proper function and what counts as abnormal function.
since when did childbirth come to be thought of as a medical condition?
crossing the road is risky too but that isn't a medical condition.
slaves who wanted to escape their masters were considered to have a medical condition. clearly irrational for them to escape, they were far better off with their masters.
masterbation considered a medical condition.
homosexuality considered a medical condition.proper function of sex is to procreate
(according to who? the majority of sperm never fertalise an egg proper functions may be rarely achieved and just because something is historical doesn't mean we *should* continue - though i won't get started on the proper function of guys being bigger than girls lol)
what is in it?
how much money in health insurance...
how much money do the drug companies make off all this?how much money does it cost to give birth to a child these days (in conditions that are considered acceptable?)
how many people go nuts disinfecting their house and their kids so that their kids have no tolerance to germs and are more likely to be infected when they come into contact?
how much are we speeding up the evolution of germs by excessive use of sterilisation and anti-biotics.
they have found levels of prozac in the water in england. it is going through people and getting into the fish...
happier...
all i'm saying is that...
i think we have lost sight of the important things in life sometimes.
i'm not saying people here have...
all i mean is that community, acceptance, belonging. adequate shelter adequate food something to occupy ones time in a meaningful way.
all the rest is just...
what?
what we think we need to be happy.
i don't understand.
i don't understand.
and i most certainly don't want to say that indiginous people are better off or 'happier' for being colonised. sure they may have hospitals and schools now... but happier? i'm not convinced. i'm not convinced at all...
we are hunter-gatherers. we evolved to live in close kin groups.
i think studying evolutionary history, indigenous populations (and other cultures currently), studying what infants need in order to be happy...
tells us a lot.
is an infant happier for brand label clothes and 50 toys instead of 2? hard to assess.
Posted by Dinah on August 8, 2006, at 8:33:56
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 0:39:14
We'll have to agree to disagree, I fear.
Posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 9:17:23
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa » Estella, posted by Dinah on August 8, 2006, at 8:33:56
uh... what are we agreeing to disagree about?
Posted by Dinah on August 8, 2006, at 9:45:26
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 9:17:23
The ills of Western civilization, I suppose.
I'm ok with discussing the pros and cons, I think there are both.
But I don't want to go into whether medicalizing childbirth and reducing maternal deaths by over 99% and infant deaths by who knows how much is a good thing. For one thing, my son would most certainly be dead if not for the current trend in childbirth, and I may well be. My best friend would most certainly have died with her first child, and would never have had her next three wonderful children. And in general, I am opposed to the historical notion, however unspoken, that women are acceptable losses in the drive to propagate the species. I don't romanticize childbirth in the least. Yeah, some of our ancestors might have squatted in the field and popped out a baby, but all too many died in that field.
I'd just as soon object to the development of a smallpox vaccine or penicillin.
If your objections to Western civilization reach that far, I don't see much benefit in my continuing the discussion.
That's all.
Posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 19:52:36
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa » Estella, posted by Dinah on August 8, 2006, at 9:45:26
> The ills of Western civilization, I suppose.
oh. sorry, i guess i did go off on a tangent rather... i wasn't really trying to have a rant about that (though i guess i did - sorry about that) as i was trying to say that there are probably goods and ills in all societies and that we should be careful not to be culturally insensitive when we talk about the things that we need (or want) to be happy.
i was reminded of a conversation between wittgenstein and his student:
'for all our ills of modern society i'd still rather be living in modern society than as the caveman lived'
wittgenstein replied:
'yes, of course you would. but would the caveman?'
thats all i was trying to get at.
> I'm ok with discussing the pros and cons, I think there are both.absolutely :-)
> But I don't want to go into whether medicalizing childbirth and reducing maternal deaths by over 99% and infant deaths by who knows how much is a good thing.oh. well, of course i agree that
> reducing maternal deaths by over 99% and infant deaths by who knows how much is a good thing.
of course it is :-)
> I am opposed to the historical notion, however unspoken, that women are acceptable losses in the drive to propagate the species.
historical notion in which culture? in some cultures... women (historically) were revered.
> If your objections to Western civilization reach that far, I don't see much benefit in my continuing the discussion.
ah. they don't.
but with the benefits of medicalisation there are also harms.
with additional choices there are also freedoms that are lacking.
i agree that people are happier (in some very important sense of the term) when their basic needs are met.
but... there are people in developed nations who struggle to meet their basic needs (and sometimes don't get them met) - aren't there?
happiness is hard to measure...
there may also be cultural bias. westerners tend to be fairly obsessed with the 'pursuit of happiness'. i mean westerners in the very general sense. as such they are likely to self report greater happiness than say... people in japan who don't value the pursuit of happiness so much as they value contentment.
how happy are you on a scale of 1-5?
maybe... 3.5 is ideal.
depends on where you are from, perhaps perhaps.
Posted by Dinah on August 8, 2006, at 20:24:54
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 19:52:36
I didn't mean overtly. I just always figured I wouldn't be up to the risk of childbirth in the old days. And yet you pretty much had to get married and bear children in order to have any status at all.
I'm a bit tetchy right now. I'm listening to "Dispatches from the Edge" and it's making me cry about preventable starvation.
Sorry if I was snippy.
Posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 21:22:54
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Dinah on August 8, 2006, at 20:24:54
((((Dinah))))
> I just always figured I wouldn't be up to the risk of childbirth in the old days.
Ah.
> And yet you pretty much had to get married and bear children in order to have any status at all.
Whenish and whereish?
I think that good foraging skills, fire tending, food preparing, cooking, weapon / net / hook / clothing / carrying equipment making etc etc were probably very highly prized indeed. Children were probably raised communally too... We get a lot of the popular conception of the evolutionary story very much as a 'story' without much rigerous investigation of the anthropological record... "clan of the cavebear" and the like...
It is amazing how diverse human cultures can be...
I'm glad we don't have to agree to disagree... At least I don't think we have to because I'm not sure that we are disagreeing...
Posted by Jost on August 8, 2006, at 22:21:04
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 19:52:36
>
> > I am opposed to the historical notion, however unspoken, that women are acceptable losses in the drive to propagate the species.
>
> historical notion in which culture? in some cultures... women (historically) were revered.
>
>
For a partial answer to your question, you might want to look for the following article, from some time ago, by Amartya Sen in the New York Review of Books:"More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing"
This article argues that unequal rights between the genders in the developing world, particularly Asia has led to a loss of 100 million women in the contemporary world. This doesn't begin to comprehend the loss of women's lives in the course of history, which would be incalculable. Yet birth control is a form of protection for women's health which many religions and societies do not accept, even now.
The article, which was very important at the time, is from 1990, but the arguments made in it still largely apply.
New York Review of Books, Volume 37, Number 20 · December 20, 1990
Jost
Posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 23:56:31
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Jost on August 8, 2006, at 22:21:04
okay. but there are of course many many many many many other cultures in the world.
i'm just saying that there are good and bad in every society.
and that the western notion of happiness is indeed a western notion and so cross cultural studies on who is 'happier' are verrrrrry hard to interpret.
and that to say that people in one country are happier than people in another country...
well sure i understand that it is hard to be happy (in any of the multiplicity of meanings of the term) when one isn't getting basic needs met.
but aside from that...
i think it is rather culturally insensitive to consider people to be happier in the 'only sense that matters' in developed western nations.culturally insensitive to other notions of happiness.
culturally insensitive to what one needs to experience happiness (in the western sense) at any rate.a western study showed that most people are less happy for more choices for the reasons i said above (the study reported in scientific american).
the pursuit of happiness...
makes it sound like happiness is something that one has to pursue... that one has to earn.i'm not so familiar with that notion (in my personal life) so much as i'm familiar with a different notion where happiness is something along the lines of homeostasis or contentment. it is something you *realise* you have and something that it is good to remember to take the time to appreciate that *you have already*. very different conception...
Posted by Estella on August 9, 2006, at 0:00:45
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 23:56:31
so do people take the time to realise and appreciate that they are okay (that they can be content and achieve some kind of homeostasus or peace) right now in the eternal present...
or do they spend their time trying to persue and earn and buy happiness that tends to elude them?
that is the difference.
what is happiness really?
who is happier? people who persue the first or the second strategy?
and how to measure that...
Posted by Jost on August 9, 2006, at 4:01:14
In reply to Re: people in Rowanda... Dinah, Gabbi-G, Phillipa, posted by Estella on August 8, 2006, at 23:56:31
The author of the article I cited, Amartya Sen, is of Indian descent and was educated in India. He doesn't write or think simply within the intellectual framework of Western Civilization.
A few lines from a short autobiography he wrote on receiving the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1998:
"My family is from Dhaka - now the capital of Bangladesh. My ancestral home in Wari in "old Dhaka" is not far from the University campus in Ramna. My father Ashutosh Sen taught chemistry at Dhaka University. I was, however, born in Santiniketan, on the campus of Rabindranath Tagore's Visva-Bharati (both a school and a college), where my maternal grandfather (Kshiti Mohan Sen) used to teach Sanskrit as well as ancient and medieval Indian culture, and where my mother (Amita Sen), like me later, had been a student. After Santiniketan, I studied at Presidency College in Calcutta and then at Trinity College in Cambridge, and I have taught at universities in both these cities, and also at Delhi University, the London School of Economics, Oxford University, and Harvard University, and on a visiting basis, at M.I.T., Stanford, Berkeley, and Cornell. I have not had any serious non-academic job."Therefore, onc can't identify the values expressed in that article to a purely Western view of the world.
Jost
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.