Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Happiness (11)

{NOTE: the majority of the discussions were led on a WhatsApp group chat or during Microsoft Teams meetings, and were only partially transferred to the discussion page}

Potential topics for the chapter
Power of silence - Dissecting the idea through how different disciplines approach 'silence', for example a musician will have his own interpretation of the idea of silence, whilst an anthropologist may undergo fieldwork and suggest that silence is a form of expressing opinion.

Power of patriarchy in film - Looking into ideas such as powerful men or #metoo movement

Issues of Truth in Mental Health (delusion)

--> All of the above topics have a potential problem of the topic being too broad and there might be cases examples require a lot of explanation. Given the word limit, it is not ideal to work on these

Final topic: Evidence in happiness

Evidence in Happiness
Ideas in disciplines:
 * Economics - Happiness index
 * Psychology - Dopamine
 * Biology - Hormones
 * Philosophy - Utilitarianism

Interdisciplinary ideas:
 * Quantitative vs qualitative
 * Individual vs population (1 vs many)
 * --> clashes and conflict? integration?

Action Plan

 * Regular meetings on Friday 12-1pm ukt
 * Look into different resources for the topic in disciplines of our own interest
 * Create basic backbone for the chapter soon

Feel free to add anything that I have missed! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

28/11 2nd meeting on Microsoft Teams
Narrowing down the topic to: Evidence in the World Happiness Report.

- initial topic being too broad

Finalising disciplines to be included:

- psychology - how happy is a person? [feeling, mentally]

- economics - how much money does one have? [financially]

- medicine, in particular life expectancy - how much time does one have? [physically]

Structure of the page:

Introduction: outline of the World Happiness Report.

Disciplines: psychology, economics, medicine

Conclusion: how the disciplines connect with each other, how they come about in generating evidence

Potential aspects to be included in the conclusion:

- individual vs society

- quantitative vs qualitative

- technology connects the discipline, tool required?

Plan of action: - doing research on disciplines mentioned above by next teams meeting (5/12) Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussed Sections
Introduction:
 * Contains overview of what the WHR is
 * References need including
 * Formatting changes needed

Methodology:
 * Contains overview of the Gallup World Poll and Cantril ladder

Psychology:
 * Needs further referencing

Medicine:
 * Start by explaining how health and life expectancy is measured
 * Explain how this relates to a person’s well-being
 * Perhaps mention that being alive and well enables the individual to be happy for longer
 * If necessary: Look at the flip side, i.e. how being unhealthy can impact happiness
 * Then tie it into the WHR and how it uses this data

Economics:
 * Alter the first sentence so that it is not subjective and more factual
 * Continue this objective tone throughout the remainder of the section

Conclusion:
 * Talk about how these disciplines are brought together to formulate the questions used in the Gallup World Poll/WHR - discussed whether this should be in introduction/methodology/conclusion??
 * Settled on putting it in the conclusion
 * Format of conclusion:
 * Interdisciplinarity - How the fields come together?
 * Conflicts between these disciplines

General discussions:

 * Concerns where raised about how to discuss how the evidence was gathered for the various sections
 * Will be covered in introduction, methodology, and conclusion
 * Concern raised about where the evidence came from - Gallup World Poll
 * This is covered in the intro and methodology sections
 * Suggestion of talking about how the methodology of gathering evidence in each section and then briefly mentioning how it ties into the WHR
 * Then spending the conclusion discussing how it all ties together into the WHR
 * See above for final decision on format for conclusion
 * Formatting:
 * Refer to World Happiness Report using acronym WHR, following first mention in intro
 * Remove acronyms if they are not used subsequently, e.g. WHO
 * Add hyperlinks throughout where necessary/beneficial

Action plans - Before next meeting - Thursday 10th December 1pm UKT:

 * Write both subsections of conclusion in pairs, as discussed above:
 * Interdisciplinarity
 * Conflicts
 * Restructuring medicine, as discussed above
 * Reformatting whole page, as discussed above
 * Referencing (Psychology), as discussed above
 * Altering first sentence of economics and making whole section more objective, as discussed above
 * Find an image to insert
 * Figure 2.1 from WHR 20 - check copyright regulations

NOTE:Please add anything I may have missed! Cakeordeath123 (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Concerns

 * Negotiation of subheadings
 * Discussed about the title problem at the top of the page - “Issues in Interdisciplinarity/Evidence in Happiness (11)”

Plan of Action

 * Fix referencing
 * Spell and grammar check
 * Cut word count
 * Email seminar leader about altering title of “Issues in Interdisciplinarity/Evidence in Happiness (11)”
 * Cross-check references
 * Export as PDF and run work through TurnItIn
 * Bonus: Add relevant image (if any)

Important: Next meeting to finalise everything on Sunday 13th December 2020.

Note: Inform group chat whenever…
 * you’re editing the page;
 * what edits have been done;
 * Word count (before your edit) and new word count (after your edit)

If I've missed anything, please feel free to add on! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

13/12 4th and final Meeting on Microsoft Teams
* Finalised and submitted the Chapter
 * We finalised referencing
 * Added additional fixes to the Medicine category
 * Added picture to the Methodology section
 * Proof read and fixed some last grammatical errors
 * Double checked word count
 * Exported the chapter as a PDF file and ran it trough the test submissions page
 * Congratulations on finishing this assignment everyone! ヽ(o^ ^o)ﾉ Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Macabre Roses! Good work everyone! Glad to have worked with you all! Take care and Happy Holidays! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for summarising this and thank you everyone for working hard together to get this done! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 16:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Focus of chapter
Hi guys. Upon closer research into the World Happiness Report, it has become clear that most of the evidence/data used in the WHR comes from the Gallup World Poll - it seems that the WHR is often using this data and then commenting upon the findings. My concern is that perhaps it would fit the topic of evidence better if we went straight to the source as it were and shifted our focus from the WHR to Gallup World Poll and its methodology. I'll bring it up in the meeting today (Saturday) so we can discuss further.Cakeordeath123 (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Medicine
Hello! I just typed a brief paragraph about how medicine can affect evidence in happiness and how this is taken into account in the WHR. However, I am quite uncertain whether what I have typed is clear enough to show how medicine as a discipline affects the evidence in life expectancy and how this in turn has an impact on the WHR. I feel like it might not really link to the evidence..? Also, I focused specifically on the 2020 report and I guess perhaps it would be ideal if we centralised this? I think we can talk about these during our meeting later today, and feel free to edit anything that I have typed. -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 04:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! I completely understand your uncertainty... It's most likely because medicine's contribution to evidence in this happiness report isn't as straightforward as the others. Perhaps the 'Medicine' section could use some more background information of some sort. For example, we could probably go into how physical health plays a role in one's happiness and how there is a positive correlation between physical health and life expectancy. Or how life expectancy allows for longer experience of life and therefore the likeliness of experiencing happiness is greater. Though I am, myself, having quite a hard time linking this back to how explicitly medicine provides evidence for the report. But I guess it's the fact that those in the field of medicine have first-hand experience with helping those facing life and death at that very crucial moment and somewhat contribute to informing the hospital of someone's passing which can then get passed on through birth mortality documents, or something like that. Also, I would suggest renaming this section as 'Medicine and Health' because I think it gives more of a broader scope and can be more easily linked with the whole 'physical health' matter if that makes sense. Apologies if none of this makes sense! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 17:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for the suggestions and the paper that you have found! I've refined the paragraph now with your suggestions and the structure we discussed during our meeting, hope it all makes sense and let me know if you have more suggestions! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That's great! Also having made a few tweaks to the Medicine section, I think it would benefit from talking about (or rather said in a single sentence because of the word count) how physical health can be measured not only through medical assessments but asking about their physical routine — which not only combines (possibly) quantitative and qualitative evidence, but also subjective and objective evidence (although those words are respectively synonymous to an extent). Following that, in the conclusion, we could maybe add something about the reliability of individuals assessing their own happiness (as they are asked to rate their own happiness themselves and such in the questionnaire) and how accurately their answers reflect their real happiness (if happiness were ever truly and indefinitely quantifiable). Though from this, I am aware that (1) this is difficult to talk about given our word count and that (2) my latter point about the accuracy of their answers may perhaps be leading towards the path of truth — but regardless I am interested in hearing everyone's thoughts on this! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion and help once again and I agree with the section will benefit from being more precise about specific ways of which evidence is collected. I have went on to search on more information and added a bit more about that based on evidence based medicine. Let me know if you think it's appropriate. Once again, thank you so much for your suggestion!! -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 03:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem! Yes, I think talking about evidence-based medicine is more than appropriate, great job! Also having read my previous reply to you in this thread, I realise I wasn't very clear about my points (especially the first one about physical routine and such) which bothers me slightly (so I hope you don't mind me reiterating my point in a more coherent manner here). And also I have been intellectually enlightened after having fully read our full draft of this WikiChapter. Basically what I meant to say was that the section would benefit from talking about (or rather said in a single sentence because of the word count) how physical health can be measured not only through medical assessments, but asking about how they 'feel' about their fitness level. Doing the latter would give us an insight into how they (a patient/citizen) subjectively view their own health as that could give us an insight into their current mental state which may neurologically affect their health and therefore happiness (both physically and mentally). Because although they may seem almost physiologically fine by observation, they may be suffering mentally and that may require more than a doctor and their extensive medical knowledge but also perhaps a psychologist/psychiatrist (which their psychology-specific knowledge). Thus leading to the collaboration of these two fields (medicine and neuroscience) to collaborate. This also justifies quite specifically why the 6 key variables in the WHR and questions in the Gallup World Poll do not only require a single discipline but many more, to determine how happiness can be influenced and what impact that has on the outcome of the well-being scores more holistically. And of course, there is that question of how reliable is one's own view of their own happiness who is the one experiencing it, compared to a doctor's/psychologist's perception of it (as an outsider / third party, and also being credible disciplinary experts)? Could this report have perhaps benefitted from a disciplinary expert (e.g. medical doctors and psychologists) medically and psychologically evaluating the interviewee rather than having the interviewee answer the questions about their own happiness themselves? But I guess this boils down to the fact that happiness is an individual concept as mentioned in the conclusion and therefore the questionnaire and its content were most appropriate for this investigation. I'd be interested in hearing your (or anyone's) thoughts about this if any come up!


 * Additionally, rewriting this also made me realise that medical assessments as evidence are in nature both objective and subjective, especially in terms of diagnoses when certain symptoms arise, or even when analysing X-ray scans. In the X-ray scan, although it was produced through quantitative methods and technology and therefore supposedly making it an objective piece of evidence, doctors would approach it almost subjectively. By observation. This truly strikes me. This is perhaps because I used to think generally that medical assessments are inherently objective — a stereotype of the nature of evidence in almost any hard/life science. But I never thought about how this might change when it comes to approaching it, which may then go past evidence but closer to what the truth of happiness entails. Also in terms of subjectivity in medical evidence, I've heard of many cases where doctors would conflict with one another when it comes to diagnosing a patient because of clashing opinions — such as on what disease the specific symptoms attribute to, thus leading to the patient to usually require a second opinion from another doctor for further accuracy. This is quite interesting to me as this is a conflict that is intradisciplinary (when our focus is very much more on interdisciplinary tensions). This also seems to resonate with our conclusion about the World Happiness Report and its usage of both subjective and objective evidences, and its potential need to integrate those two semantically conflicting evidence in order to attach a value that best reflects the happiness of an individual in a specific country. Sorry for blabbering, I'm currently having in my own little thought bubble. And apologies if this is straying further from our topic — I am currently thinking as I write. --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No worries about straying further from our topic. Let me address the first part of your comment, I think it's a very unique thought about having the experts examine an individual's happiness but I think this cannot be the only way of assessing one's level of happiness because of the inherent 'individuality' of feelings. Moreover, if the experts diagnosing how happy a person is knows that the results will affect a nation's level of happiness, perhaps they will not be as objective and these bias accounts are difficult to detect. So I guess the questionnaires directed to individuals is potentially a better methodology to generate evidence for the WHR.


 * In response to your second point - I'm so glad you found this interesting. At first, I was very confused with medicine and health sciences in general for I am not particularly familiar with the discipline but as I investigated more, I started to realise how evidence is so crucial in medicine. In fact, I think what you're feeling and thinking is very similar to what I thought when I came across evidence based medicine under systematic review (you might want to have a read about it here I guess it's because we're used to understanding science as 'objective' or absolute, but in fact when it comes to diagnoses and problems relating to health, it is inevitable that subjectivity plays a role. Especially when it comes to making decisions such as the doctor's diagnosis, the treatment for the patient etc. Therefore, evidence based medicine attempts to fuse these elements to make sure doctors follow a proper protocol to prevent over subjective decision. - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your response and for that link — I will definitely give that a read! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Economics
Hey all! Just added a first draft of the section on economics evidence in happiness. I think it'll need a lot of trimming and changing - but there are some useful references included. I think it will also need refocusing on the WHR, because the second paragraph in particular lost that focus slightly. Cakeordeath123 (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! I think the section is looking really good and also I added a hyperlink for the word econometrics so that it help clarifies things, hope that's alright. -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 03:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Introduction
Hello! Just added my bit on the introduction and decided to add a separate section called "Methodology" so I could go into brief detail about how these values were calculated. Feel free to add or remove anything! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello all. As discussed on WhatsApp chat, I have done an overhaul of the introduction and methodology sections:
 * Removed repeated information
 * Clarified that the happiness scores used in the Ranking of Happiness also come from the Gallup World Poll data
 * Removed the introduction heading and left the intro as a line underneath the main title
 * Upgraded the methodology subheading to a heading in place of the now-deleted introduction heading
 * Reduced word count (by 29 words)

I have left the original section there for comparison, please let me know if you feel I have missed any relevant info from the original section/if I have made any unnecessary/detrimental edits?? Cakeordeath123 (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think given the word count constrains, the version on the top is better than the one below [original] (the entry word-count is 1216 words with this), I also think the main ideas about the WHR and the Gallup is clearly summarised as well. - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with Shaunice34. Thanks for that! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 17:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I also agree, and have at present removed the old version from the page. Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Referencing
Hello everyone! Just wanted to clarify something: is everyone using Vancouver referencing? I realised we didn't really say much about this but it just popped up in my head suddenly. Let me know! Thanks! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey! Yes I've been using Vancouver referencing, I think it's the standard for wiki accounts? Anyway maybe we could go over all the referencing during our meeting later? - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 02:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sounds good! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 15:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * During our meeting on the 13th of December, we reviewed and finalised all referencing. Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Psychology
Hey Macabre Roses, I edited the psychology section as I think we're quite over the word limit at the moment, let me know if there's anything that you think shouldn't be deleted and feel free to add it back. I mainly tweaked on connectives so should not be too much of a problem. Do let me know! -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 03:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the edits are well done! Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Formatting
Hello all! Does anyone know what we should do about the title that seems to show up at the top of our page (i.e. "Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Happiness (11)")? I believe that title is old and seems almost unremovable. Has anyone else tried fixing it perhaps? --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, I tired fixing this - I used a similar method that I adopted previously for changing the title of the change, but by doing so - this page completely disappeared so I had to undo what I've done to keep the page... - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That's odd... It seems that, based on a Wiki chapter on the main page I stumbled upon, a group got rid of this same problem we are having. I guess we should email our seminar leader about this. I'll CC you all in! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * [NOTE] Outcome: According to our seminar leader, we were told to just leave it be, unless he hears otherwise from other ATK lecturers. --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion
Hello everyone! This is just a small suggestion but I was wondering whether maybe we should change the heading from "Conclusion" to "Evaluating Evidence"? It doesn't change much but I think it suits our ending better and ties things up well (in the sense that we are simply evaluating the evidence at the end). What do you all think? --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe 'evaluating evidence' will suit our content more as we are not really concluding what we've written but we're evaluating it instead. So yes, I think it's a good suggestion, let's wait and see what Cakeordeath123 and Macabre Roses think. - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it would be better if we emphasised on the "combination of evidence" from different disciplines. Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * After a discussion in the meeting today 13th December, we have settled on changing the "Conclusions" heading to "Interdisciplinary Interactions", and removed the subheading "Interdisciplinarity", which has now been done 14:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Cakeordeath123 (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Philosophy
Hey everyone! I read through some articles and books about happiness in philosophy and utilitarianism is definitely a topic where it clearly links to happiness. This is an approach that can allow the moral agent to know what is 'right' to do when facing a dilemma and is heavily based on utility, which is often understood as happiness. I've consolidated some notes so you can all have a read about it and see whether it could be included into our chapter.

Utilitarianism = teleological approach in ethics → the end justifies the means
 * Idea generated from Jeremy Bentham who included this in his book: Principles of Morals and Legislation (1978)
 * The consequence is what matters, in this case the principle is to maximise utility (because humans have a tendency to 'seek pleasure and avoid pain')
 * Utility often understood as happiness
 * Therefore, the morally correct thing to do is whatever that will result in the greatest amount of happiness

An introduction and easier read to Bentham's book can be found here

Happiness: = ‘Calculated’ through the Hedonic Calculus (p.22 of the introductory text)

Some things to be considered - specifically linking to qualifying and quantifying:


 * Some of the criteria can be quantified by numbers, for example ‘duration’ but some cannot as they are sensation, for example: ‘intensity’ - is it possible to try to incorporate both quantity and quality into one account?
 * In these 7 criteria, does one contribute more to the actual feeling of ‘happiness’ ?
 * To me the methodology seems to be → but it might not be ‘clear’ in providing a  ‘direction’ as to deciding what happiness means
 * All these criteria all dependent on the subjective experience of what one thinks what constitutes as happiness - is that a problem?

Feel free to supplement your thoughts and we can also discuss more during our call this Friday! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 05:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This is really interesting! I think this ties in quite explicitly with Economics. Because classically, economists often adopt this principle of utilitarianism in most of their theories (notably rational choice theory) where they assume all consumers will make decisions that maximises utility. But I believe it is a theory that is more than often refuted by behavioural economists. I resonate with your questions too - they would fit perfectly in our conclusion/ending. Great work! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 05:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing me with this insight! I don't really know much about economics but it seems really interesting how the disciplines have similar concepts but the concept is applied in different ways due to the nature of the discipline itself! I was just wondering then, when economists deal with 'happiness' do they usually follow the utilitarianism approach, especially when they calculate the happiness index or do they use both? - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 06:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply! But I would say that it depends on the branch of economics. Classic economists would usually use utilitarianism as the default assumption that all consumers go by when making decisions. But the emergence of behavioural economics which incorporates psychological theories to classic economics have gone against that most times. So I guess ultimately, looking at economics as a whole, I would say that they use both but different subfields of economics approach it quite differently. I'll give an example of where utilitarianism is applied. So, traditionally, utilitarianism does serve as an underpinning of some early basic economics concepts that looked to understand the decision-making behaviour of a typical consumer — so at what point do consumers stop consuming and for this, classic economists have theorised that it is at a point where marginal utility (their marginal satisfaction from consuming a unit of the product) falls. This theory is called the law of diminishing marginal utility which is taught early on in economics courses usually. I hope that made some sense... and answered at least one of your questions! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 06:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I just saw this reply! Thank you so much for clarifying things especially by giving an example and it's so interesting to see how this concept is applied to Economics. (As I don't really know much about economics...) I'll spend some time looking into the theory that you suggested. -Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 01:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Economics
Hello! I've compiled some notes regarding the way in which economists quantify happiness especially with regards to the Happiness Index.

Happiness Index / Gross National Happiness / Life ladder
 * Definitions:
 * - Created by Global Happiness Council (GHC), a group of independent academic happiness specialists.
 * - Old definition according to GHC as of 2012: The Happiness Index is defined as the weighted (by sampling weights) rate of respondents reporting “Very happy” or “Quite happy” less the weighted rate of respondents reporting “Not very happy” or “Not at all happy,” plus 100. The index thus ranges from 0 to 200.
 * - Recent definition in 2018 report and onwards: Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 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?
 * - Scale 0-10
 * - Involves a multitude of specialists from different disciplines: psychologists and neuroscientists, technologists, economists (source: GHC report 2019)
 * How data is sourced?
 * - Integration of qualitative and quantitative analysis
 * - Method of collecting raw data is qualitative as it is collected through surveys and therefore subjective and based on an individual - retrieved from Gallup World Poll
 * - Interviews 1000 residents / country in +150 countries
 * - Interviews people aged +15
 * - “asked the same questions in his or her own language to produce statistically” (source)
 * - the questionnaire measures 14 areas within its core questionnaire: “Business and economics, citizen engagement, communication and technology, social diversity, education and family, individual well-being, environment and energy, food and shelter, government and politics, law and order, health, religion and ethics, transportation and work culture.”
 * - Data is processed to bring out an average from all surveys that represents a country’s Gross National Happiness

Questions I have following this research:
 * - Can an average of only 1000 residents per country truly represent the happiness of the people within a country?
 * - Regarding the exclusion of ages below 15 from survey - why? Is it assumed that they are not capable of identifying their level of happiness? Is their response just not valid because of their lack of experience in life and maturity to do so (compared to those aged 15+)? If it is, then doesn't the lack of children representation in this happiness index skew the data and its validity as an index?

Please feel free to add any more notes, thoughts, and questions you may have! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well done for doing this, it is very informative and interesting! One common theme that I am picking up on is that the concept of happiness is usually experienced by the individual but all 'evidence' towards happiness is based on a definition or a generalisation drawn from either a group of specialists (in your example) or by an individual (in the case of Bentham), which makes me question to what extent are these measures an accurate representation? The questions you have raised are also very thought provoking, especially regarding the exclusion of ages below 15 from the survey. It made me realise a potential limitation that runs in both this survey and also in utilitarianism. They both require one to have the ability to realise they are happy in order to have 'evidence'. However, surely if we were to observe if a person is 'happy' or not, certain behaviours such as smiling or laughing could be taken into account. Thus, perhaps a behavioural approach in psychology would be able to address this limitation, therefore, demonstrating in order gain a holistic view and of what happiness it might require evidence from a range of disciplines. (This could be included in our conclusion and we could discuss this further in our meeting tomorrow!) - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 06:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes, that point about observing whether a person is 'happy' through smiling and such is very interesting! Though I wonder how valid that would be as evidence as people experience happiness and exhibit that feeling in different manners (e.g. one might laugh aloud out of joy whilst another would simply sit still but experience that same level of happiness). And, yes, I think that would be great to look within the conclusion! --Kerocringe09 (discuss • contribs) 07:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree that a smiling might not be a full representation of one's happiness as it could have several interpretations. Let's talk about this later today! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 03:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Neuroscience (Psychology)
Hello everyone, here is the main information I have gathered on the concept of happiness and its measurement in Psychology. This involves a general overview of theories of happiness in Psychology, different ways of measuring happiness as well as some perspectives. Please do let me know if there is anything you would like to add, question, edit, remove and so on.Macabre Roses (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 In Psychology, there are three main theories of the concept of happiness: 

- The Freedom of Choice Theory The extent to which a society allows free choice has a great impact on a person's happiness (when their basic needs are met). Inglehart R. "Cultural Evolution: People's Motivations are Changing, and Reshaping the World" (2019)

- The Self-Determination Theory The ability to make choices without external influence and interference - being self motivated has a direct link with happiness. Ryan, Richard M.,Deci, Edward L. "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being." American Psychologist, Vol 55(1), (Jan 2000) 68-78

- The Positive Psychology Theory Spending time on improving our own well-being in a more positive and proactive way contributes to our happiness. Bolier L, Haverman M, Westerhof G, Riper H, Smit F, Bohlmeijer E."Positive psychology interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies" (2013)

 Methods of measuring happiness in Psychology: 

- Biological (there has been minimal success in identifying the biological markers of happiness):- quantitative Using biological markers such as hormones and neurotransmitters to measure happiness (What is known is that the markers for happiness are not the same as those for depression)

- Behavioural: Physical behaviour such as frequency of smiling, laughing and helping Others. - quantitative Mark Holder (2017)

- Implicit measures (have not been proven to be effective): People do not know their happiness is being assessed - usually assess reaction times of connecting positive and negative terms to oneself. - Other reports: Asking people to rate someone else's happiness (children of parents and the other way around) - qualitative

- Self-Reports (most common): Using a single or multiple questions to ask a person what their level of happiness is. - qualitative The Subjective Happiness Scale

Issue: The answer is subjective and humans are disproportionately impacted by the most recent events in their life, so if for example a question is asked to rate one's overall happiness throughout their life, if something bad happened recently they are likely to answer accordingly.

 Meik Wiking (“The Psychology”, 2018): 

In order to measure happiness, it is important to look at the various parts that contribute to the concept of happiness. differentiate between momentary happiness and overall happiness.

- A person’s genetics

- Situation

- Behavior (40%)

 Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, and Schkade (2005): 

Three different constructs that are involved when talking about happiness such as:

- More positive emotions

- High life satisfaction

- Less negative emotions.


 * Wow! This is super interesting, particularly how different branches of psychology actually approach this differently. I was wondering for the experiments that were carried out, was there an age restriction? (For example, in economics, the Gallup World Poll it's 15+) Moreover, one thing that cam into my mind is that both in economics and psychology, the discipline will conduct surveys and experiments to transfer the qualified data into quantified data - this requires two people, the interviewer and the interviewee. Yet, in philosophy, the moral agent is the only person who determines the 'happiness' of other individuals. We could talk a bit more about this during our meeting later! - Shaunice34 (discuss • contribs) 03:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)