Non-religious, socialist societies are happier

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

Academics can be dogmatic. They can produce well-documented dogmatic work. It's still dogma.

But you haven't even seen the book.

Speaking of . . . um, dogmatism.

The fact that he allowed his title to suggest that I somehow love my children less because I don't belong to his political camp disgusts me.

I don't suppose that you're familiar with words like average, tendency, and the like?

I won't be reading a worthless book.

You won't be reading a worthwhile book, either. You won't be reading the book at all.

You haven't even seen it.

This is really pretty funny.

For the record, though, I think the book was very well documented and extensively researched, and that his case will not be overturned by people who haven't seen it calling the book "disgusting," "worthless," and "dogmatic slop."

Those who fear that their ox will be gored by the book will simply stick to their preconceptions, refusing to read it and preening themselves on their resistance to "dogmatism."

It would be hard, even in satirical fiction, to improve on this.

[_Ray A]

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

The article doesn't say anything about religion. This is what it says:

The study was directed by University of Michigan professor Ronald Inglehart. He says that unlike other studies, which have focused on economic factors, his research has found that financial prosperity is not the only reason for happiness.

"Our research indicates prosperity is linked with happiness. It does contribute," he says, "but it is not the most important factor.

"Personal freedom is even more important, and it's freedom in all kinds of ways. Political freedom, like with democracy and freedom of choice."

And it's no surprise that:

The study also found that the countries at the bottom of the list all struggle with widespread poverty or authoritarian governments.

Zimbabwe, which is gripped by hyperinflation, and has recently seen a controversial presidential election marred by violence, was found to be the least happy nation amongst the countries covered by the survey.

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

Academics can be dogmatic. They can produce well-documented dogmatic work. It's still dogma.

But you haven't even seen the book.

Speaking of . . . um, dogmatism.

The fact that he allowed his title to suggest that I somehow love my children less because I don't belong to his political camp disgusts me.

I don't suppose that you're familiar with words like average, tendency, and the like?

I won't be reading a worthless book.

You won't be reading a worthwhile book, either. You won't be reading the book at all.

You haven't even seen it.

This is really pretty funny.

For the record, though, I think the book was very well documented and extensively researched, and that his case will not be overturned by people who haven't seen it calling the book "disgusting," "worthless," and "dogmatic slop."

Those who fear that their ox will be gored by the book will simply stick to their preconceptions, refusing to read it and preening themselves on their resistance to "dogmatism."

It would be hard, even in satirical fiction, to improve on this.

Wait. Stop. What just happened here? Please clarify, Daniel.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hold on. Did Canucklehead just dogmatically condemn a book that he hasn't read for being dogmatic?

Is that what I just read or not?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hold on. Did Canucklehead just dogmatically condemn a book that he hasn't read for being dogmatic?

Is that what I just read or not?

Canucklehead just dogmatically condemned a book he hasn't even seen for being dogmatic.

Yup. That's what you just saw.

Which is why I remarked that it would be hard to improve on this, even in satirical fiction.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hold on. Did Canucklehead just dogmatically condemn a book that he hasn't read for being dogmatic?

Is that what I just read or not?

Canucklehead just condemned a book he hasn't even seen for being dogmatic.

Yup. That's what you just saw.

Which is why I remarked that it would be hard to improve on this, even in satirical fiction.

Thank you, because when I read it my brain sort of did this:

[_Ray A]

This article, from the same series of investigations, is even contrary to the OP:

According to psychologist Professor Ed Diener there is no one key to happiness but a set of ingredients that are vital.....

Marriage also seems to be very important. According to research the effect of marriage adds an average seven years to the life of a man and something like four for a woman.

The second vital ingredient is having meaning in life, a belief in something bigger than yourself - from religion, spirituality or a philosophy of life.

The third element is having goals embedded in your long term values that you're working for, but also that you find enjoyable.

Psychologists argue that we need to find fulfilment through having goals that are interesting to work on and which use our strengths and abilities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/h ... 783836.stm

[_Ray A]

Let's do some more myth-busting here in regard to Denmark:

In a 1999 EVS poll, Danes were asked to identify the nature of their belief in God.

* 21% said "A personal God"
* 31% said "A spiritual force"
* 19% said "I don't know what to believe"
* 23% said "I don't believe there is a God"
* 6% did not respond

In spite of this, about 85% of the Danish population remain members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and a large majority of people attend churches for baptisms, weddings, and funerals.

Wiki.

[Guest]

If Sweden were our 51st state, it would be the poorest state in the Union, poorer than Mississippi. Galloping social pathologies there, including drug use, high divorce rates, unwed motherhood, and youth suicide preceded ours by some time, being well ahead of us as early as the late sixties.

The aggressively well-read Droopy gives us another one of his fact-filled lessons on macroeconomics and politics. But where does he come up with it all?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 4rank.html

Sweden GDP/capita, 36,500$ a year. Lower than the US (though look at Norway, talk about off the charts) but let's break down the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... a_(nominal)

bzzzzzzzt. Looks like Sweden is doing substantially better than Mississippi and South Carolina I might add. In fact, the real joy is that: IT'S DOING BETTER THAN UTAH! LOL! Old GBH's wild building campaings not withstanding. Sweden would be 21st state GDP/capita wise, better than average. Fortunately for the US, we do better than Sweden overall because while we've got Coggins in SC bringing down the curve, there's all these democratic voting states with very high GDP per capita saving the day.

And the CIA doesn't seem nearly as pessimistic about Sweden as Coggins. I won't quote it for the sake of space but a lot of positive things going on in Sweden.

According to CIA:

AIDS in US (est) .6%, in sweden .1%

average life expectency higher in Sweden too.

...hmmm

[_Canucklehead]

Hold on. Did Canucklehead just dogmatically condemn a book that he hasn't read for being dogmatic?

Is that what I just read or not?

I have no desire to read a book with that title merelyy because it was mentioned it on a message board. I didn't "dogmatically condemn it", although that's what DCP would like you to believe. In fact, I specifically said that I would read it if someone I knew and respected recommended it to me.

There are many worthwhile books in the world to read and only a small amount of time in life. I don't take my recommendations willy nilly from people I don't know on message boards. If you want to call that dogmatism, go ahead.

whatever.