PHILOSOPHY - Happiness 2: How Do Scientists Measure Happiness?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- In this wireless philosophy video, Laurie Santos (Yale University, The Happiness Lab podcast) talks about the tools that scientists use to measure how happy we are.
View our happiness learning module and other videos in this series here:
www.wi-phi.com...
![ออกพรรษาน้ำตาหล่น - แอน อรดี [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PFZtOcY9ONA/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm very happy as long as no scientist tries to tell me how happy or unhappy i'm.
@@thotslayer9914 Yet doctor or psychologist personally doing that (with one to one contact) is still much better than such possible dystopia of government having a centralized database of all our data with scientists running AI through it, finding people matching psychologically abnormal profiles. Think Minority Report. Just with todays available technology and science instead of oracles.
Well, good thing this wasn't the intention of the video, right?
@@PhilomenaCunt No, the creators of the video are nice people :-) Only explaining stuff.
Thank you for the video, this is just a confirmation that any study that reports happiness level is subjective and thus can't be trusted 100%
They are measuring something which is by definition a subjective experience. In cases like these, a subjective self-report study is actually more trustworthy than any sort of objective measurement (such as hormone levels, brain scans, etc.), because at least they measure something that the subject can confirm is related to their subjective experience. With objective measurements, such connection is much more difficult (if at all possible) to establish.
@@KohuGaly
I agree with you that's actually a really good point!
I guess I was just thinking along the lines of : if we asked a victim of abuse is he happy with his abuser, the answer would probably be yes. I do think that there is a certain discontinuity between how we actually feel and how we think we should feel.
Another thing is that, unless the emotion is really intense it would be really hard to map it to a number, like does 3 really means that you feel exactly like 3. These scales don't usually capture the full specter of emotions, I do believe that there is a fundamental error in trying to put an objective value on something that is subjective. perhaps it is impossible for us to know exactly how happy someone is, maybe? unless you are that person.
A better title would be "how scientists fail to measure happiness". SWB is not what the folk mean when they talk about happiness.
Answer :: fill out this questionnaire. Brilliant!
Without even taking a survey I know what results will be. There is a good level of happiness IN my life but I severe lack of happiness WITH my life.
It was because of unhappiness with my life that I become depressed until I learned in past couple of years that there is no reason for me to destroy the present day by not living it to fullest and enjoying my life.
Comparisons produce a poor crop.
I thought literal happiness was measurable with serotonin or dopamine levels,
i don't like how people want happiness in a way it destroys them
i think that peace is what is needed, not wanting more and less, just existing and acknowledging life
because when happiness is given value above all, then that would introduce a new form of capitalism, the exploitation of the human emotion
also, all emotions are valuable and not just happiness, that's what the movie 'Inside Out' told me at least
we can be satisfied with life when we do not want material anymore, not when we are high on happy
we can be sad with someone and find comfort in the sadness or something, the emotion equation is hard lol
so i think people should aim for peace
But that's just my theory, if it doesn't make sense, it's because i'm a teen
measurements like this don't mean shit in abs terms only in relative to your own previous mental status
You're right
What we deeply seek is
Peace & security
with some good relations (frenz, family, spouse) to spend time with.
the more you care about happiness the less happy you feel.
Underrated comment
Isn't it typically human to feel content until we really think about happiness... at which point we'll feel less happy than before the question? :-)
Shorter video: "Science needs Philosophy to explain things Science thinks it can measure, but actually can't."
I think this is too simplistic. I think philosophy is necessary for identifying what happiness is; however, if happiness is at least in part a subjective experience, then that experience has been caused by some brain-state (which we can, in principle, observe), and the brain-state itself was caused by some stimulus in the world (which we can also observe). So I think that interdisciplinarity between philosophy and psychology on the topic of happiness is very useful.
Hm. That was a rather unsatisfying video. It basically told me "go do these tests" not "these test work in this and that way". After reading the title I expected to know how such tests work, not what they are called.
A Yale University prof presents at a fourth grade level.
You can't measure qualia, that's what I think happiness is. Very subjective.
Glorified advertisment. The only useful information in the video is that hapiness is measured subjectively (duh), and the in/with distinction. Could have summed that up in 2 minutes or less.
To some extent, you could scientifically measure happiness. If you have depression, anxiety, PTSD or any other neurological condition that's affecting your life, there are ways to measure that.
Other than that though, questions regarding how satisfied you are with your life and how pleased you are with the direction you're going aren't exactly scientifically measurable...
Somewhat disappointed in this video. The distinction of happiness in/with your life is interesting but... well, that's literally all this video has to say. Also, the presentation was way too childish.
Moral of the story: chasing materialism and a career does not make women happy. ☺