Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ShalmaneserIII t1_j3hereu wrote

Reply to comment by lpuckeri in Anna Alexandrova, a philosopher of science at Cambridge, argues that a “science of happiness” is possible but requires a new approach. Measures such as “life satisfaction” or “positive emotions” can be studied rigorously. An underlying variable of “happiness” cannot. by Ma3Ke4Li3

> But i don't think people can make perfect assessments of their own happiness even with their qualia.

That is, though, about as good as it's going to get.

Presumably few would say they're unhappy when they're somehow secretly happy. Some more might say they're happy out of a belief they're supposed to be happy. Despite that, the person describing their own qualia has to be better than anyone else at knowing whether that assessment is right or not.

7

lpuckeri t1_j3hgxyq wrote

I agree with you 100% im basically adding on to refuting klosnj11

Thats about as good as it gets. Maybe you could argue machines measuring neurotransmitters can be better sometimes, but the point is that you dont need access directly to someone subjective qualia to make good, helpful, meaningful scientific assessments of happiness. Meaningful inductive assessments can be made through self reporting and other assessment methods.

Klosnj11 is conflating science seeking general and useful understandings of happiness to a completely objective understanding of happiness. Just like the mustard manufacturer can study taste to improve it generally, but doesn't claim to objectively perfect taste.

4

ShalmaneserIII t1_j3hhj98 wrote

> Maybe you could argue machines measuring neurotransmitters can be better sometimes,

Possibly not, considering what we know of how neurotransmitter-increasing medications work. They don't cause an end to depression immediately after raising neurotransmitter levels. And, ironically, suicide risk goes up shortly after starting the meds.

2

lpuckeri t1_j3hji5p wrote

No doubt. It was kinda besides the point as i said. I was just playing devils advocate as I'm sure there's at least some situation or person where measuring neurotransmitters is more helpful than self reporting. Also it can be helpful in addition to self reporting.

But i would generally agree self reporting is much more valuable.

2

GETitOFFmeNOW t1_j3hkbn4 wrote

I'd be curious how happiness researchers would rate my happiness since I'm in daily, almost constant low level pain that zaps my energy and my ability to experience the world of active people. I also feel shitty, physically often due to POTS. I've been sick for at least 35 years.

But I've got a bunch of challenging artistic pursuits I can do from bed or my house. I'm in a happy marriage, I have several close friends and my mood is good. I'm also free of most of my family who have been unsupported and even hostile since I fell ill.

The main factor that may have nothing to do with the rest is a good mood. I'm very lucky. I'm not sure I have anything to do with that except for eliminating as much stress from my life as I can.

3

bonafacio_rio_rojas t1_j3hvhdn wrote

I would think the person describing their own qualia would only be better than anyone else in describing it, but not making accurate assessments of their happiness (without taking time for introspection, at least).

1