Non-religious, socialist societies are happier

[_Canucklehead]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7487143.stm

World Values Survey

Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and Canada are all happier than the US, according to a recent study. (Of course, so is the relatively religious Colombia.)

You'd think that if a personal, vengeful God existed a-la-Coggins/Droopy/BCSpace, he wouldn't be rewarding these secular, liberal societies with higher levels of joy than his very own chosen people.

"Verily, verily I say unto you: wickedness never was ... er ... ummm ... well ... Maybe I'll just make the disbelievers and socialists EXTRA-SPECIAL happy. That way, it'll be a REAL test of faith for mine chosen people in Utah!"

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hmmmm.

The numerous studies and extensive research summarized in Prof. Arthur C. Brooks's Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America--and How We Can Get More of It (New York: Basic Books, 2008) and Peter Schweizer's Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals (New York: Doubleday, 2008) seem to point in precisely the opposite direction.

[_Canucklehead]

Hmmmm.

The numerous studies and extensive research summarized in Prof. Arthur C. Brooks's Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America--and How We Can Get More of It (New York: Basic Books, 2008) and Peter Schweizer's Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals (New York: Doubleday, 2008) seem to point in precisely the opposite direction.

I've never read either of those books, but I don't think I'll ever even pick up the second one you mentioned. Its title simply reeks of partisan hackery. Perhaps "Peter Schweizer" is the nom de plume of Ann Coulter.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've never read either of those books, but I don't think I'll ever even pick up the second one you mentioned. Its title simply reeks of partisan hackery.

Schweizer is a research associate at the Hoover Institution at Stanford.

He's clearly pretty partisan -- to put it another way, he's an homme engagé -- but he cites scores and scores of interesting academic studies. I was impressed by the extent of his reading.

Still, you're obviously free to skip it if you choose. I plan to read your article.

[_Chap]

He's clearly pretty partisan -- to put it another way, he's an homme engagé --

We should all feel grateful to DCP. Most of us here have a reading age so low that a three-syllable word like "partisan" would have messed with our heads real bad.

But an explanation in French - that's really kind, and helps a lot.

Does he go to dinner at the White House much, d'you reckon?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31077

[_Canucklehead]

Still, you're obviously free to skip it if you choose. I plan to read your article.

The article I linked to was a short BBC article which refers to another peer reviewed article based on data from the World Values Survey. The time commitment required to read the BBC article is, perhaps, 60 seconds. If one were to look up the academic article and read it, one could expect to spend, at most, 3 hours.

You referenced two books, one of which has an absurd title that immediately reveals the extreme bias of the author.

I hope that you'll forgive me for being less than excited at the prospect of spending a week or two out of my few summers on this planet engaged in slogging through hundreds of pages of dogmatic slop which will, more than likely, result in the death of a few thousand neurons from my frontal lobe.

I value my time and my brain too much.

[_Daniel Peterson]

We should all feel grateful to DCP. Most of us here have a reading age so low that a three-syllable word like "partisan" would have messed with our heads real bad.

But an explanation in French - that's really kind, and helps a lot.

Actually, it does. There's a nuance and a reference here that you plainly miss. Hommes engagés are regarded, in academia, as quite admirable -- so long as they're on the left.

I hope that you'll forgive me for being less than excited at the prospect of spending a week or two out of my few summers on this planet engaged in slogging through hundreds of pages of dogmatic slop which will, more than likely, result in the death of a few thousand neurons from my frontal lobe.

I value my time and my brain too much.

Of course, the reason I pointed out that he's a fellow at Stanford who draws on probably considerably more than a hundred peer reviewed academic studies -- I haven't actually counted them -- to support his points was to deflect any charge, by somebody who hasn't even seen the book, that it's merely "dogmatic slop."

It is, as I say, heavily documented, and the breadth of his reading was, to me at least, quite impressive.

[_Chap]

We should all feel grateful to DCP. Most of us here have a reading age so low that a three-syllable word like "partisan" would have messed with our heads real bad.

But an explanation in French - that's really kind, and helps a lot.

Actually, it does. There's a nuance and a reference here that you plainly miss. Hommes engagés are regarded, in academia, as quite admirable -- so long as they're on the left.

I've missed a nuance and a reference?

Or wait - worse still - maybe it was a nuance and a référence?

Language is normally used for the communication of meaning - even in Academia (UT), I believe. Failure to use a language register appropriate to the context of communication suggests one is aiming to communicate something other than meaning, such as, for instance, one's amazingly high cultural level.

That was, as DCP may have guessed, my point.

[_moksha]

Hmmmm.

The numerous studies and extensive research summarized in Prof. Arthur C. Brooks's Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America--and How We Can Get More of It (New York: Basic Books, 2008) and Peter Schweizer's Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals (New York: Doubleday, 2008) seem to point in precisely the opposite direction.

Do they suggest that happiness extends from a vengeful God you have to assuage rather than a loving God that you love back? Probably so if they are advocates for conservativism.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Do they suggest that happiness extends from a vengeful God you have to assuage rather than a loving God that you love back? Probably so if they are advocates for conservativism.

Clear evidence that non-conservatives are at least as prone to inaccurate stereotyping as conservatives are.

Amusingly, Peter Schweizer's book actually touches on precisely this liberal stereotype about conservatives. On the basis of peer-reviewed social science data. Fascinating.