Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Happiness

Happiness
Delete, same reason as above. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 09:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete same rationale. --Duplode (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki Wikiversity. The content can be of use to several areas like physiology, religion, etc. If no for anything else as a basis of discussions on those areas.  --Panic (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

More of a personal essay than an academic discussion. Thenub314 (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What specifically are the OR issues? This is one of the few books that actually cites academic studies, and there are college courses and textbooks on the subject. --hagindaz (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the book is the 'first' to use them for such purposes. BTW a custodian wants it for their Happiness book, so a transwiki might do. :)Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 01:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to hear, but I'm still leaning towards a vote of keep since (a) the related Wikipedia article has plenty of verifiable academic sources, (b) it seems most or at least many of the facts in the book are already cited or can be cited by those sources, and (c) there are respected accredited institutions and accompanying textbooks about the subject. What's the issue exactly? --hagindaz (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One question that comes to my mind is what is the book trying to be. Is it a book that studies what things influence happiness, or a book that guides you to happiness?  Different parts of the book read a bit differently.  I think it is the parts of the book that read as a guide that are the ones that brought it up here.  The parts that are more cite more clinical studies about happiness do not so much try to guide you.  The parts of the book which are meant to guide you two happiness are not supported.  Overall I think it is possible to cite sources and still have OR problems.  Here is the main issue I see many of the sources sited are primary sources, it is not clear to the reader if they have been later verified or refuted by other researchers. Placing these in juxtaposition with opinion about how to become happy becomes a type of synthesis.  To give an example of what I mean, there implicit claim that mediation is correlated with happiness (by including a page on it).  This claim is perhaps suggested by the following section on Spirituality (which mostly just points to wikipedia).  Notice though, that page doesn't cite any academic references, just a guide on meditating, In fact the page in this book about meditating doesn't once mention the subject of happiness! Many of the later pages are similar (is willpower really connected to happiness? how about luck?).  Maybe there is something here that could be salvaged, but I don't think it will get away for OR issues, so I am officially changing my position that it should be transwikied to wikiversity. Thenub314 (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Would saying "x correlates with happiness; here is how to do or be x..." be original research, if all claims have reliable sources? What if existing textbooks do this? (According to the article I linked, the Harvard class (and accompanying textbook?) teaches how to meditate.) --hagindaz (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't original research; that is bias. :) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with Kayau) It depends a bit on how it is done. Here is an example of something I think would be original research.  "Your job is the most important factor in your happiness. Being a mathematician is known to be the best job.  To improve your happiness you can become a mathematician, to become a mathematician you must..."
 * I hope that suggestion sounds a bit absurd (but I could provide more primary sources to support it.) One problem is that even if the studies explicitly said that mathematicians were happier (which I admit they don't say) nothing says that forcing yourself into the job of a mathematician will help you be happy.  Perhaps you just need a positive outlook on life to survive graduate school.  More generally, the statement "x correlates with happiness" is very different from "doing x will help you be happy".  You would really need a study that said, "after starting x people's happiness improved."
 * To be really honest to your scenario, I would to change the statement "To improve your happiness you can become a mathematician, to become a mathematician you must..." To simply "To become a mathematician you must...", but if I the page placed this discussion under a section on how to improve your happiness, wouldn't the message be just the same?  Thenub314 (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (PS about Harvard) In my some of my undergraduate acting classes we would start the day with doing some Yoga. It was the opinion of the professor that doing yoga helped ones acting abilities, but I know of no scholarly research that backed this claim up.  Thankfully University professors are not required to keep original research out of their lectures, which is one reason it is important to allow OR at wikiversity. Thenub314 (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Common sense can be labeled as OR. Common sense tends to be mostly obvious but it also comes in layers (and at times common sense seems rational but has no real scientific basis). Most Yoga exercises (there are various types) do increase relaxation, so depending on the context it could indeed benefit the activity. Most of the Yoga classes I've been I would end asleep on the rug. --Panic (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, as is true for any book, all the standard disclaimers about the power and limits of correlation would either be stated or implied. Regarding your example, there is lots of mainstream research about the relationship between happiness and the workplace. A chapter discussing the trade-offs of various professions and how to choose a good profession, given a person's characteristics and interests, seems reasonable to me. So I would change "To become a mathematician you must..." to "To choose a suitable profession, you must...". --hagindaz (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like we at least agree that I committed some kind of synthesis in my argument about happiness and mathematics. As I started to write my response, I happened to start reading one of the references pointed in the book. The sources cited are mostly of of the same poor quality as the example argument that I gave. The academic references pointed out that most of the the pages on about Money, Compassion and Health are flawed. Let me mention what I read when I looked at the references. For the moment this book is taking ideas mentioned in various first source articles and trying to use them to paint a picture of what happiness is. The ideas taken are (by and large) not the main ideas of the papers being referred to. It also surrounds these ideas with pages containing its own point of view about happiness. To me this seems to be original research and would be better, which is why I felt it would be better suited to wikiversity. Thenub314 (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Money by far gives the best representation of the facts presented in the reference, though the paper itself is rather a critical of "Happiness research". Mainly this is a defense of the United states socio-economic system and it says about happiness research "Even if we table the damning charges of questionable science and bad moral philosophy, the American model still comes off a glowing success in terms of happiness." But there is not too much to complain about with this particular reference.  Tough, going forward into the "how to be happy" section of the book it would be important to keep in mind here that the statements are about average populations, not individuals.  See my follow up remark in the third point.
 * Compassion The page claims that "people who volunteer are happier and healthier, regardless of income." but in the cited reference I could find (nor my word search) could find the terms health or happiness.  Instead the paper examines various models that attempt to understand civic involvement in Britain.  The paper goes on to say that income is an important factor in all of the types of civic activism they put forward.  Claims about happiness are not at all the topic of this paper, and using this paper as a source to support this statement is synthesis.
 * Health Well there is so little hear maybe I shouldn't complain too much. The page does explain the the figures it is putting forward are correlations between health of a population vs average happiness of the population as such wouldn't really be relevant to the discussion of your health and your happiness.  Since the stated goal of this wikibook is to "make the search for self-fulfillment easier." it is natural to assume the information being put forward is for the individual reader, and not for someone doing policy planning for a society.  This page is particularly misleading because there is nothing to tip off the reader that this statement was not a measurement aimed at individuals, unlike money which at least mentions GDP per capita.


 * The reason I am hesitant is that these claims (unlike the math example) seem like they would be mentioned in regular textbooks on the subject. From looking at the Wikipedia article, most of the claims in the book seem pretty mainstream. If this isn't the case, then I do support transwiki as well. --hagindaz (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Mainstream =/= good. ;) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * :) Mainstream =/= bad. Mainstream = generally accepted. Mainstream is, generally, the common current of thought of the majority. I don't think this in general terms should by itself be an argument for deletion (or even traswiki), but a refusal to permit the addition of a minority view, would justify a POV tag. A mainstream view also excludes the issue of OR (in the meaning of expressing new concepts) since it implies it is generally accepted as valid. But the point being argued is that some of the propositions aren't mainstream, and that the errors are cumulative and central to the works subject making it extremely difficult to be acceptable under WIW.
 * Taking the analysis of Thenub314 I can defend opposing points but couldn't possibly state that I fell that after making the needed balanced corrections the work would have any educational purpose. --Panic (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally accepted and the current thought of majority =/= NPOV =/= valid. :PKayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 00:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Can be. NPOV only requires that the content doesn't cater only to one positions. Many mainstream propositions aren't opposed or have a consistent opposition, take the example "The speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light." or "Man is the main cause of global warming." alone this affirmations are valid and unless I create a book whose subject derives from them, not mentioning marginal opposition wouldn't break NPOV. This is also concurrent to problems of using common sense. --Panic (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh, but that's science not life. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 06:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Science is life (the study of reality). In any case I'll give you a proposition that you have used "Young people will lack experience." this is common sense but can be argued against (because it is also relativistic). It would be acceptable to make this general affirmation in a book but like the above examples using the proposition as a core subject of a book without further explanation and counterbalance would create a NPOV issue. --Panic (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Backing up a bit I don't view wikipedia as a decent source for what is "Mainstream". My personal experience editing there has taught me that many articles take a rather unusual perspective on the mathematical issues, or spend a lot of time discussing things outside normally considered mainstream mathematics. I suspect the topic of happiness research has a lot fewer a lot fewer experts editing these articles.  Since I wouldn't use wikipedia to judge what is mainstream in my field, I really don't trust it to judge what is mainstream in other fields.
 * Further, I am not convinced the Wikipedia article really supports this book. For example, of the items listed in the "Keys to Happiness", the wikipedia article on happiness doesn't even mention: Luck, Passion, Compassion, or Independence.  In other places where the "Keys" are mentioned, the specifics disagree, such as with Health, where the wikipedia article says there is allots 15% of your happiness is depends on: socioeconomic status, marital status, health, income, sex (possibly others?) while the way this book is written makes it seem as if the number determined by health alone is 70%.


 * I find the later sections are also not supported by wikipedia, There is nothing I can find about about using your awareness to catch negative thoughts and exerting your will power to change them. Nor do I think it is particularly mainstream to advise people to pursue happiness as if they were running a business. Thenub314 (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I would accept Wikipedia as a representation of the mainstream and here on the project we have in past discussions. Regarding your observations it could be argued that because of a deeper level of knowledge/experience in a field one stops sharing the mainstream. As a historical exampled consider Copernicus, it couldn't even be stated that he was doing OR. --Panic (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While I might agree that developing a deeper level of understanding about a subject may cause you to reject the mainstream positions on that subject, it in know way invalidates your understanding of the mainstream positions. I can read a wikipedia article on mathematics and accurately decide if it deviates from the mainstream thinking about the subject regaurdless of my feelings about that particular article.  I think historically Copernicus correctly understood the main stream positions about his theories.  I am not sure what your implying by "it couldn't even be stated that he was doing OR", he was an astronomer and it is blindingly obvious he did some very original research. That is great, and he was good at it.  But if wikibooks had in existed in some form during the Renaissance with something like its current policies, he still couldn't include his work in our tombs. Thenub314 (talk) 11:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Panic, you may want to read w:WP:SCRABBLE. It's not directly related here but it might be helpful. Also, I never said young people all lack experience. I only attributed my lack of experience to be age. This cause does not have to apply to everyone. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We are mostly in agreement on the points. The devil is on the details and that is why I extended your remarks above. Yes you didn't express yourself with that phrase but the meaning was implied as a generalization or a mainstream view as we are discussing. If you are getting hung on the details you can re-read our firsts interaction, I also remarked that I didn't agree with that mainstream view... --Panic (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said to Kayau we are mainly in agreement. The concept of mainstream is an highly personal view of what others think about a subject, marketing and publicity work to shape that view on others, it is somewhat similar to a status of majority consensus (were opposition is non blocking until it gets visibility and recognition).
 * My reference to Copernicus was a quick example regarding Heliocentrism as the contradiction of the mainstream view (at that time), and that fringe concepts at times are valid against what the mainstream accepts as immutable truths. Without even being based on OR (he did express and validated the concepts mathematically but the core view was not his creation). It is also interesting to mention that the information brokers at the time (the church) shaped the mainstream view of the known world and worked to prevent that view from changing, leading to Galileo Galilei's death due to an attempt to publish his observations.  --Panic (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By mainstream I mean that it would be found in a university textbook on the subject. This book, for example, discusses "Capitalizing on Positive Events", passion in the context of "Gainful Employment", "Empathy/Egoism and Altruism", and "Individualism: The Psychology of ME", and in general alludes to topics in this book. The claim that "Seeking happiness is like running a business: you have limited resources to make as much profit as possible. Because supply is limited, it must be used as efficiently as possible." is just the economic concept of utility maximization given opportunity costs, which is a well established partial proxy for happiness. Economists often model business profit maximization the same way they model utility maximization, and this is generally a fairly predictive model. I agree the book should be cleaned up and updated, as with most books here, but, given my limited knowledge, the base seems okay. --hagindaz (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have taken a look at this book, and I think it should be noted that this book is not a book about happiness. The book is about Positive Psychology.  I gather this means the subject seems to intend to introduce the study of positive aspects of human emotion as hope, compassion, and resilience to balance the usual study of more negative topics of mental-illness, depression etc. Certainly happiness is a part of the discussion of this book, it is not its focus any more than other positive emotions.  As many of the sections in the "Keys to Happiness" are considered positive human emotions they naturally occur in this text, but reading some the sections mentioned above I see occur outside the discussion of happiness and do not discuss happiness in any detail.  (Also some sections are not directly what the one might expect.  For example, "Capitalizing" is a technical term meaning "To tell others about..." where I was expecting a section more about how to use positive events to your benefit.)  Overall I am not convinced the claims in the Happiness wikibook are really mainstream claims about happiness but maybe the wikibook confused the concepts of Happiness and Positive Psychology?  Also as a final note, having read about the book I can see that the Harvard course about Positive Psychology mentioned above is not simply about happiness but many other aspects of Psychology as well.  So, after reading some of the text you point out I still think this consists of OR and should be transwikied to wikiversity. Thenub314 (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, maybe there is more of a middle ground! hagindaz, how do you feel about merging this book into Positive Psychology? (Which I only just realized exists)  It is currently empty, and whose subject is more in line currently taught in universities, and we could place the text you find as a reference! (Since most of it is readable via amazon this would be a great aid to people wanting to develop the text.)   I suggest we move the sections in the "Keys to happiness" sections (except Luck!) to their own sections in the new book, which would be more in line with what I read in the text you found.  Some sections would have to be changed a bit. For example, in money it is no longer clear why we would be talking about the relation between GDP and average happiness, but fortunately there is lots of info in the gainful employment section that we could capitalize on.  I don't think the existing sections in the self-help portion of the book would really make sense for a merge (based on what is actually written in the vs what I have read today.)  Does this sound like a reasonable plan? Thenub314 (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea; I support a merger. --hagindaz (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol merge vote.svg Merge Just, to make it easier for everyone one to see, I officially support the merger idea as well. Panic, Kayau, what do you think about merging as per my plan above?

Here is what I think should be done: Or whatever way that achieves the same result. Of course, we need Wikiversity's approval. Darklama required here. :) Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 15:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Somehow replace the learning sources on Wikiversity about happiness with our version.
 * Then transwiki the positive psychology book to Wikiversity.
 * Do the merger in Wikiversity.


 * Happiness and Positive psychology are both stubs. I think people would welcome the work on Wikiversity, if Wikibooks doesn't want it. --dark lama  14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * NHardly any books on Wikibooks seem to indicate their sources and the definitions on what is or isn't OR are too fuzzy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xania (discuss • contribs)