Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Evidence in Measuring Workplace Happiness

=Ollie's Evidence points:=

"Different disciplines have different epistemological and methodological approaches and assumptions giving monodisciplyinary silos".

"Behavioural psychology can act as an avenue of collaboration" - can we tie together what we have researched?

There is a disciplinary divide and each discipline fails to capture the other's complexity.

What is the definition of workplace happiness for an economist? A psychologist? A neuroscientist? An anthropologist?

Can we insert Venn diagrams for facilitating our presentation? Showing overlaps/silos,

If we focus on income in economics, is the "motivation theory" crowding out intrinsic motivation?

WHAT IS THE VALUE OF OUR EVIDENCE?


 * This is a really good summary of the key points from the lecture - let's go through this checklist during our next meeting on Monday to make sure we've covered all the key points we need to. I think the key will be to make sure we emphasise how the values placed on evidence and the meanings assigned to different evidence forms vary between disciplines. This is what ultimately leads to the interdisciplinary tension. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I put that list of Ollie's things up and James' quote from his advice lecture up to help keep our eyes on the ball. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 13:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Meeting Notes
(20.11.20)

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan.

In initial Zoom: establishing our interest in happiness (focus on workplace happiness? quantifying happiness?). Looking at it within Economics, Neuroscience/Psychology, Anthropology as a basis, might cut these down again/shift focus.

For tensions: look between Economics and Anthropology (money vs feeling, Gross Happiness Index vs Ikigai). Make sure to find relationship between different case studies used. Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 14:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Economics, look at monetisation of happiness and workplace happiness (Gross Happiness Index, performance outcomes).
 * Neurologically(+Psychological): specific indicators and neurotransmitters? MRI.
 * Anthropology: culturally look at Ikigai, look at Bhutan. Evidence in anthropology/workplace is performance outcomes, and surveys (mix of quantitative and qualitative).

(23.11.20) 11-12 am

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan.

In this meeting we decided to focus on the evidence used to quantify workplace happiness to make our section as specific as possible, rather just looking at evidence used to quantify happiness as a whole. This will narrow down our focus and ensure we don't make our research too broad. We decided to continue our research, adding to the wiki chapter as we go along, before starting to refine the content after our next meeting.

(27.11.20) 12-1 pm

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan.

We focused on the structure of our wikibook, trying to narrow refine the content and take stock of what we have done. We agreed to go through the chapter and add missing references, as well as the following:

Introduction : changing the picture caption ; amplify the difference between "well-being" and "happiness" Economics : changing the sentence : "Since the 1970s, the belief … " ; rewriting the second paragraph Neuroscience : cutting out a few words ; linking the last sentence to the workplace happiness Anthropology : adding some more content. A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

(30.11.20) 11-12 am

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan.

During this meeting, we tried, as much as possible, to conciliate our work so as to not exceed the word limit. We want to keep the relevant sentences within each paragraph. We worked a lot on the neurosciences section. A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 11:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

(01.12.20) 3-4 pm

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan and Lara Gregorians

We had a Teams meeting with our seminar leader. She told us not to list the evidence that happiness can measured but to develop it and use case studies. After that, we summarized everything by saying that we had to change the 3rd paragraph of the " economics " section (to make the 2nd paragraph more developed), try to focus on positive psychology in the " psychology " section and maybe remove the part about Freud. We also thought of changing the "tensions" section to "conclusion" either as a whole part or by putting a few sentences at the end of each of the first three parts. A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

(04.12.20) (1200-1330) 12-1 pm

Attendees: Katherine, Astrid, Bethan and Adelaide

Katherine edited while we all collaborated together.

Today's meeting was a focused editing session. We went through paragraph by paragraph: cutting down words, and clarifying our ideas to make sure we were always returning to talk specifically about evidence. Redistributed "tensions" into the subject paragraphs to make it flow better. Shifting overall structure of paragraph to improve cohesion. Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Given what Lara said, I think we should change the diagrams that show how we measure happiness and find more pertinent ones like the Bhutan GNH. This is good because it is used to gauge the happiness and contentment of the citizens and can be both quantified and qualified. It is also the basis for the United Nations Happiness Index and some governments, including David Cameron's 2010 UK government. I think we have already referenced this as a secondary source in the anthropology section. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I also think we have done a good job of finding evidence and we just need to show how that has been applied. We have to be careful not use the word 'evidence' but the substance of what it stands for. It is not necessarily expressed as such but is implied from the writing around it. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Really good points. I agree, I we can find a few more relevant diagrams, particularly the Bhutan GNH, and be really clear about what value the different disciplines place on their own forms of evidence. Having just read through the content, I think we're also missing quite a few references to support statements we've made, so we'll need to go back and make sure they're all included. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I will try to find another diagram who is more relevant to put in the "economics" section. A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 06 December 2020 (UTC)

(07.12.20) 11-12 am

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan.

Katherine edited while we all collaborated together.

Today's meeting was again a focused editing session. We started by editing the "psychology" section, trying to concise it. We ended up achieving our goal with having 1,200 words in our wikipage.

(11.12.20) 10.15-11.15 am

Attendees: Adelaide, Katherine, Astrid and Bethan

Bethan and Adelaide edited while we all collaborated together.

In this last meeting we finalised everything. We removed a sentence from the "psychology" section, added references, corrected some mistakes... --A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 10:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

 * Establishing Happiness as a discipline and what is happiness

This Wikibook chapter will explore how evidence is used to quantify happiness from different disciplinary perspectives, spanning Economics, Neuroscience, Psychology and Anthropology, specifically focusing on happiness in the workplace. It will also explore the tensions that arise between these disciplinary perspectives, demonstrating how the determining of which evidence to use in order to quantify happiness becomes a non-linear interdisciplinary question.


 * I would like to amend the last sentence in the above paragraph to include 'non-linear' - it is not a straight line to the achievement of happiness int he work place and solutions are interdisciplinary.Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that we even need to establish happiness as a discipline - I think we can just try and define happiness itself. The disciplinary perspectives come from looking at evidence in quantifying happiness through an economic, psychologic, neuroscientific and anthropological lens, so 'quantifying happiness' is more of a 'case study.' I hope that makes a bit of sense as all these abstract themes and ideas are quite hard to conceptualise! I'm not sure we'll have space to go into how happiness is emerging as a discipline in its own right, as by the time we've written about evidence in the 4 disciplines I think we'll be over the 1200 word limit already. But maybe this is something we can keep in mind and come back to if we have space to do so at the end? I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Within Different Disciplines
Look at evidence used quantifying happiness from 4 different disciplinary perspectives. 1. Economics 2. Neuroscience 3. Psychology 4. Anthropology


 * I wondered if it might also be worth have either a separate subsection on genetics, or adding it into the section on Psychology. I've tried to integrate it into my neuroscience research but don't feel that it really fits as it's really a subsection of the biological side of psychology, if not a discipline in it's own right. It would be a shame not to include it, even if it's just a sentence or two, as it's a great example of the tension between evidence in modern psychology and evidence Freudian theory. Let me know your thoughts! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think Genetics would be a good addition? But then perhaps we are getting sidetracked. I really feel we need to tighten this up. Happiness in General, even through these four disciplines, is very broad...?


 * I agree - we can talk more in our meeting tomorrow to narrow down the disciplinary perspectives that we're going to take further! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion

 * Tensions

Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Psychology

 * As we are now under 1200 words I think we could expand the meditation bit to more than one word. Meditation is evidence so two sentences should help. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I've had a few thoughts about the psychology section, and how we can integrate genetics into it while also talking about the tensions in the way that evidence is used to quantify happiness. Genetic psychology appears to be a subdisicpline of psychology, and in the same sense, Freudian theory (psychoanalysis) could also be seen as a subdiscipline of psychology, if not a discipline in its' own right. I thought it might make sense to discuss the contrasting ideas from these two subdisciplines, although I wasn't sure if this would complicate the chapter too much, as the brief was to discuss tensions between rather than within disciplines. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Definitely think we should look at that. I don't think we'd need to worry about it being tensions within a discipline, as online Genetic Psych seems to be interchangeable with Behavioural Biology, which then separates into into another discipline. It would almost be a question of adding another section/shifting focus, which isn't ideal considering word count but definitely a possibility and one i think we need to discuss. Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been looking at the last paragraph of the psychology section, specifically the mention of CBT. I think we need to relate this back to evidence and quantifying happiness in the workplace, so will do some more research and try to integrate some references and some more information into the existing text. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey yeah, I was thinking that too. I've found a good source that mentions methods of quantification, but working on getting access at the moment. Stairs, M., & Galpin, M. (2010). Positive engagement: From employee engagement to workplace happiness. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (p. 155–172). Oxford University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-21869-013 This second source I found really interesting, and feel that it really hit the nail on the head (not properly cited, just title and link) Happiness, inspiration and the fully functioning person: Separating hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in the workplace. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439760.2012.711348

Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * CBT is the evidence here - it is quantified empirical evidence. The questions show how it is applied in the workplace/individual cases and how it helps to "rationalise not catastrophise" - together with meditation/mindfulness techniques it is positive psychology in its element. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I added a paragraph in the "psychology" section about measuring the content of happiness at work. I think that Adelaide had also done some researchs about the same topic so she can complete my paragraph A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 06 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Can we substitute Wellbeing for Success? Success is very subjective and in this context it is an objectivity signal. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Or "success" of what?Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The last sentence in this paragraph is difficult to understand. "These variables are measured across a wider context e.g. in The relationship between workplace happiness, meditation and psychological capital?" I don't understand this! Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As we wrote in the beginning, CBT and meditation have been demonstrably proven to work and I think the above sentence should be removed and we put in something underneath the equation like, "Meditation, under the “eightfold noble path” helps with the V because it reduces attachment and cultivates acceptance" and take out that last sentence. I have put it in, and we can discuss tomorrow. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Psychology is a good example of intra-disciplinary tension because of the reliance on both qualitative and quantitative evidence. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 14:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sketched up a possible sentence to add to CBT para with specific research methods and some extra references. (ref incomplete)

Randomised control trials (RCTs) are used to quantify the effects of CBT over time in a spectrum of variables: including work participation and self-reported symptoms of anxiety, depression, stress, and exhaustion; quality of life; and psychological functioning, using tools like scales (like the Work and Social Adjustment Scale). Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 09:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

For CBT as well, just seeing if we can clarifying and make the definition a bit more precise. Found this which I really liked so could see if we could integrate “Cognitive-behavioural therapy seems to help clients to analyse and ‘reality test’ existing patterns of thinking, emotional reactions and behaviour identified via an assessment fo current difficulties, and to try out new approaches in a stepwise fashion, monitoring and evaluating effects in all three areas.” QUOTED from Sheldon B. Cognitive-behavioural therapy: Research and practice in health and social care. Routledge; 2011 Mar 17. https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7QmsAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=cognitive+behavioural+therapy&ots=KtR45WVDLD&sig=YKUhGpJYytIvWPavcNu3fhO1rMY#v=onepage&q=cognitive%20behavioural%20therapy&f=false Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 10:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The references to meditation have all been taken out, but the effects of meditation are used as quantified evidence. Let's try and put something back in. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Economics
I expanded the Bentham philosophy to include his 'Utilitarianism', just to define what his philosophy was. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 15:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Kahnemann came up with the $75,000 mark. It is important to reference him.

Put in Daniel Kahnemann and Angus Deaton. When I was researching, found a few studies before Steven Pinker's refuting of the Easterlin Paradox so removed note of his as criticisms of others had been levied before (in 2008, 2012 and a few others). Just want to get your opinions to make sure I kept key points. Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Previously unavailable, big datasets now prove higher income means higher happiness, this is true cross-nationally as Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, proved, enabling "reassessment" of the Easterlin Paradox (that money doesn't buy happiness), and that more money to a poor person means more to them than it does a rich one. (Company bosses use this evidence, and implement pay increases tapered to benefit lower-incomes more than higher. The hope here is that happiness is "endogenous": engendering productivity and conscientiousness, partially fulfilling a need to feel valued to feel happier. The evidence also refutes the earlier idea that $75,000 is the optimal happiness/income level above which happiness growth slows. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Big datasets now prove higher income means higher happiness, and that this is true cross-nationally (Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, to reference), refuting the long believed Easterlin Paradox (before big data), and that more money to a poor person means more to them than it does a rich one. Company bosses know this, and implement pay increases tapered to benefit lower-incomes more than higher. The hope here is that happiness is "endogenous": engendering productivity and conscientiousness. (reference Pinker 271 - to do) Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Really like this, excited to see how it'll integrate into larger text. Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Economic advancement should bring greater happiness. However, this doesn't necessarily follow. Since the 1970s, the belief was what economist Richard Easterlin quantified as the Easterlin Paradox- the idea that over time, happiness is not correlated with increased income. In his 2018 book, "Enlightenment Now",[4] Stephen Pinker discounted this in the psychology theory of Hedonic Treadmill (Pinker. P.263) - we have a baseline of happiness. The higher the GDP, the higher the happiness of the nation; the higher the income, the higher the personal happiness (Pinnker, P 268). Above an income of $75,000 day to day happiness will increase much more slowly

^ This was your original paragraph @Tsarina Catarina

Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the first economics paragraph, and I think it would be good to include some of the tensions between subjective and objective data that arise from Bhutan's GNH Index. I've incorporated my ideas into the paragraph and I'll post it below, so if anyone has any feedback or comments, please let me know!

Economics places value on quantitative data; surveys, self-assessment scales and measurement tools such as the Day Reconstructing Method (DRM), and Bhutan's Gross National Happiness Index (GNH), which quantifies the happiness and contentment of its citizens as an empirical measurement. Economists, however, selectively focus on the empirical data, which other academics criticise as too conservative and meaningless without the contextual dimension that subjective data can offer, a perfect example of interdisciplinary tension. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 04:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this last sentence can be more succinct: Because economists focus on selective empirical data, tensions can arise with other disciplines as economic data lacks subjective context. What do you think? Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 10:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That's great - much more succinct and well explained. I've added the sentence with your name in the edit summary. I added a final bit to the sentence 'and treats happiness as a simple calculation', but let me know your thoughts. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 10:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree!

I changed the picture in this section but we can always put back the other one if you prefer. A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Deidre McCloskey is a very important thinker on these topics. (Transgender, I believe, she has written on many things.) However, I question whether she does quantify happiness as "simple"? I don't know, I am just asking the question! 2A02:C7F:5C08:8700:D60:4AD0:979A:F1A4 (discuss) 19:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * very good point - I've changed it to 'purely a calculation' because you're right, quantifying happiness with empirical evidence is definitely not simple! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 08:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the new image is better - we talk more about the GNH so it's good to reference it visually2A02:C7F:5C08:8700:D60:4AD0:979A:F1A4 (discuss) 19:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Neuroscience
Quantifying Happiness in Neuroscience

Here are some points from my initial research. Genetic factors - twin studies suggest that genetic factors can account for 35-50% of our overall happiness levels. (Quantitative data). (I thought it might be best to include this section with the psychology section)


 * I put in a diagram here which demonstrates how much genetics could be said to account for in happiness - supporting our Neuroscience/Psychology statements Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a great addition - thank you! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Neurotransmitters involved in happiness include: Serotonin, Norepinephrine, Endorphins. Quantified using fMRI and MRI imaging techniques.

Neuroscience seems to be heavily quantitative - this will be a good example of tension between other more qualitative disciplines such as anthropology.

I'll try and focus on only 1 or 2 imaging techniques to explain how happiness is quantified in neuroscience, to make this section as concise and specific as possible. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, and psychology, whilst a natural science, heavily relies on qualitative evidence to support its claims. Understanding more about Human Nature allows us to understand more about ourselves. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There's also a new branch of interdisciplinary study called Neuroeconomics, looking at psychology, economics and neuroscience together. This might be interesting to include somewhere! From this it seems like disciplines are gradually becoming able to overcome their tensions and work together in a more cohesive manner. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 03:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I like the inclusion of oxytocin - this is the hormone that is released when you give birth - the first time you hold your baby, the mother releases huge amounts of it, as does the baby, which helps the bonding process, - it is the LOVE hormone. It is when she realises that she will do anything for her baby. This obviously does not happen in fathers to the same degree - so perhaps this has something to do with single, white males finding lockdown the most difficult to deal with? There is no outpouring of 'love', even by the coffee machine, there is no associating with other people...? Conjecture! Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Very interesting point! It's fascinating to think about what kind of interdisciplinary research will be conducted after lockdown and once life starts to return to some level of normal. I think it's taught us a lot about human behaviour and the idea of happiness has become especially important. The research around oxytocin is super interesting and was a great place to start for the neuroscience section - I've also been looking into dopamine too so can hopefully get a bit more research together on that to look at the quantification of happiness from this angle too! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 08:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I understand your last sentence in second paragraph - varying levels of trust? I can't remember the whole sentence without going back to the page and copying and pasting but would you be able to explain it to me please? Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem at all - what I meant by this was that experiments were carried out where people had interactions with people who they trusted different amounts, so some people they trusted a lot, others not so much. The oxytocin levels were then measured in these participants to quantify the difference in oxytocin levels in comparison to the trust they felt towards a person. I will re-word what I've written to make it clearer, thank you! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 16:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The evidence shows that high levels of the neurotransmitter, dopamine, makes a large contribution to workplace happiness: [15][16] Lower levels are linked to psychiatric disorders like depression and increased risk of Alzheimer's and other neurological diseases.[17][18] The evidence, from using Positron Emission Tomography (PET scanning), maps, analyses and quantifies neurotransmitter levels in different parts of the brain: [19 Applying this knowledge, we know that keeping the brain active into later life is critically important for our long-term health and happiness.


 * I have redone the above paragraph to show the evaluation and application of the evidence. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 20:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on Anthropology
Have done a bit of research into this. I'll link some resources I've used just as a starting point. Think we need to discuss this area a bit. https://www.berghahnbooks.com/title/MathewsPursuits#:~:text=Anthropology%20has%20long%20shied%20away,lead%20happy%20and%20fulfilling%20lives.&text=Distinctly%20different%20in%20different%20places,of%20happiness%20and%20its%20pursuits. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281115995_Anthropology_of_Happiness_The_State_of_Well-Being_and_the_Way_of_Joy https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.14318/hau5.3.002 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.542.7013

This next two specifically because they talk about quantification: https://www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org/index.php/ijow/article/view/137 https://internationaljournalofwellbeing.org/index.php/ijow/article/view/132

This next one specifically states that anthropologists have avoided looking at happiness, what do you think about examining this? It still is a tension, but more so avoidance rather than differing views> https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/34625/391039.pdf?sequence=1#page=146 Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have added a paragraph on Anthropology. It's just a starting part but structural functionalism and sociology come to the fore here. I will look more deeply. Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

finished the para on anthropology and changed the focus as I think it more direct in applying the evidence. It's almost like a negative balance to the positivity of the other three disciplines, but it isn't - it's just pointing out qualitatively that it's really hard to measure successfully happiness, generally and in the workplace and therefore measuring contentment and referring the criteria back to ideals seems a logical way to go to evidence it. The ideals have been around for millenia, so there must be some truth in them and I think we have been able to justify the inclusion of hygge and ikigai Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the anthropology section, especially the last paragraph regarding the tensions, is brilliant. It's so well written, thank you! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ditto to Inorganic, you really put together well a super complex idea in that final paragraph, made it super comprehensible. Thank you!!

Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you - I hope it pulls it all together . I think it is really interesting how anthropology is a slow development, and the other disciplines seem to be more quick to change. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Found this source, thought it was really interesting because it seems to be attempting to establish a groundwork in anthro happiness. Unfortunately behind a pay wall so can't go beyond abstract :( http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:ajm&volume=9&issue=3&article=011 Also: http://repo.uum.edu.my/18603/ "employment status, job type, and workplace characteristics can affect the measures of subjective well-being and happiness." as possible factors from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/56528108/2018-IJMHS-P2.pdf?1525920697=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_Impact_of_Innovation_and_Smart_Gover.pdf&Expires=1607339601&Signature=g2fjdXvpmn9sUhmSICe3kWeQtYxseJQ8u-zmOqMXve8LHUh36K0eVLEp9x2N6vdXP8QcMkMz~DDpRlNTPotBGfHN40oO-ieLRv7j~TEjR2Ei3Xf5f4Pl2WS384oFEhCsZb6-xdTpCDBHFaQM5EltAwygEcCXqTafyPkUCMjT023DmINW5u4Ei682W1jOrDWX9tvnV4eXoy1yiFksDmnbf-2bv6TNJV4ho33nZSQPKo1nAUTsqM65sahfAncjtl41y1Epkop82JntJwN2176csRE6WvPN9msh~8LnrYotB8m13CPM5TUsYlh1L1BJhoubnST8hbSEDPs4EJcjkMEAOg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA fun little millennial article: https://ejournal.usm.my/aamj/article/view/93 Basciscool44826 (discuss • contribs) 10:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, yes it's really interesting A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Endorphin release is neuroscience, not anthropology? Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Sentence possibility:

Modern technologies and tools have made work more holistic than just an economic necessity, with ‘psychological and emotional engagement’ being recognised as a key part of the economy. 2A02:1205:C699:5C70:6527:3B5A:1AA:55DB (discuss) 18:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"The hope here is that happiness is "endogenous": engendering productivity and conscientiousness" - the line from Pinker in the economics section.


 * Sustainable emotional well-being of employees is a crucial contributing factor to workplace happiness; its positive effects can lead to increased productivity, resilience and engagement. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Tensions between disciplines
I just thought I'd put some ideas about how we can explore the tensions between disciplines when it comes to quantifying happiness. I think the most obvious ones are the the disagreements between the use of qualitative vs quantitative data between for example, neuroscience and anthropology which might be quite good to explore briefly. @Tsarina Catarina: It was also really interesting to see what you wrote wrote regarding psychology and genetics disproving the Freudian theory of happiness in childhood correlating with happiness in adulthood. That's a really good example of a tension between neuroscience, where genetic factors are considered, and psychology. It looks like we've got lots of great perspectives to see this from! Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 08:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that neuroscience and modern psychology agree that genetics accounts for up to 50% of our happiness levels - your biological start point, as opposed to older psychology such as Freud's theory that an unhappy childhood leads to unhappiness in adulthood. We should discuss this!! @inorganic-yogi Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 15:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Definitely! I'll try and think of where would be best to discuss this, and will try and get a few sentences into the chapter on genetics. I think it would be a really good addition to the chapter, especially if we can keep it concise and as relevant as possible. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * @Tsarina Catarina: I'd like to try and integrate the genetics research into the psychology section, as from some research it looks like genetic psychology is a sub discipline of psychology. This would be quite interesting to explore as it shows the tensions created within a single discipline due to the differing theories, so shows that tension could arise not just between disciplines, but within. Would you mind if I added a brief sentence or two on genetics into the start of the psychology section? Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the tensions is getting more succinct - we don't have enough words to get everything in we want!!

I don't mind anything you add - please do! Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added text to this section, specifically focusing on the tensions between economics and psychology, as I found a very good article that really helped to succinctly get the points across. I've referenced it in the wiki book, and I think it's a great example of how unwillingness to collaborate and communicate can lead to interdisciplinary tensions. I'd also like to explore the tensions between psychology and neuroscience, as I've read quite a few articles hypothesising about neuroscience 'replacing' psychology in the future - it's interesting to see what this means for how the evidence psychology is perceived by neuroscientists and vice versa! I will do some more research and summarise any points that might be of interest for our chapter. Inorganic-Yogi (discuss • contribs) 09:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Research
[13/11 16:14] Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Why are people miserable at work? Mental health repurcussions; blue collar, white collar, autonomy, vested interest.... anthropologically linked, psychologically linked, chemically linked, triggers, communication, consequences. if we can help people to be happier at work through bringing together all these disciplines, rather like a management consultant but a "productivity" consultant or "happiness" consultant. It's about having a purpose in life and having vital engagement and finding solutions. Thinking big ideas.... I enclose some research taken by Bank of America Merrill Lynch that might be interesting to you... If you want to read the whole report I can send it to you. Also, I don't know how to paragraph on Teams?

[Monday 16:18] Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Yes - these are all great ideas. Brainstorming and mind mapping it all out might be a good thing to do on Friday. Quantative, Qualitative, Culturally and Societally - how do we use the issue topics we have studied to change perception/culture and prove that it works? ​[Monday 16:19]Tsarina Catarina It's also Science and Health and Environment point of view too - they all link to find better solutions ​[Monday 18:06]Tsarina Catarina

Just as a thought, and another link - obesity links into this too. I happen to know that the former chief medical officer, Sally Davies, is grouping together 12 companies to try and sort out the obesity crisis. But I fear they are looking in the wrong place: people overeat when they are unhappy, a lot of the time.

I will put this here, then we have everything in the same place. Still trying to think about how we can use happiness and I think it could be a super concept ? It links so many systems together.

http://happyplanetindex.org Tsarina Catarina (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Two year ago, a group did their Wikichapter on Evidence in Climate Change. I find interesting how they structure it: 1	Case study: Glaciers retreat in the Andes 2	Introduction to evidence 2.1	Evidence in geography 2.2	Evidence in Economics 3	Evidence in Climate Change 3.1	Cultural differences in the acquisition of evidence 3.2	Economics of Climate Change 3.3	Geography in climate change 4	Conclusion A.ren01 (discuss • contribs) 11:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * - I agree - we can use the same kind of headings: "Evidence in... whichever discipline it is, but it does add to the word count. Tsarina CatarinaToo (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)