Sunday, December 11, 2011

Happiness is.

what is happiness?... Aristotle had quite a bit to say on happiness... and so it seems do conservatives.

PBS (oft-thought as liberal) had a recent discussion about happiness and your ideological beliefs... this may come as a surprise to the liberals out there, but conservatives are happier on average... and the reasons may surprise you... below are some selected portions of PBS's findings:

One of the biggest correlates with happiness in our surveys was the belief of a meritocracy, which is the belief that anybody who works hard can make it. That was the biggest predictor of happiness. That was also one of the biggest predictors of political ideology. So, the conservatives were much higher on these meritocratic beliefs than liberals were.
belief in your own merit makes you happier... the belief that you are owed something makes you unhappy... this is what conservatives call "common sense".

Now, optimism alone doesn't determine contentment. Religion boosts happiness. So does marriage. But Napier's research accounted for that.

JAIME NAPIER: "We adjusted for education, for income, for marital status, religion, people who lived urban vs. rural, all kinds of things. So, you know, on average, just your ideology alone is an independent predictor of your subjective well-being."
did you get that?... i know the jokes about marriage, but it makes you happier... it makes me happier... just ask my wife; she'll tell you what i think.

and "religion boosts happiness"?... oh, the compounding effect of a religious conservative.

they even adjusted for education and income... this means that even poor, stupid conservatives are happier than rich, educated liberals... alternatively, a well educated conservative is still happier.

Napier says American economic malaise of the past few decades disheartened everyone, but liberals most of all.

So, everybody was decreasing in happiness as there was more inequality, but liberals to a significantly greater extent than conservatives.

And, in 1974, the difference between liberals and conservatives on happiness wasn't statistically significant. It was, basically, ideology didn't predict happiness in 1974.
so, the Summer-of-Love liberals were equally happy as their conservative counterparts... and while the inequality of wealth became greater, only the liberals became unhappy... apparently, they seem to think they aren't getting their fair share... the conservatives, on the other hand, aren't looking for a hand-out, so they are content to work for what they earn.

It's not true that conservatives are richer than Liberals. Liberals are actually richer than conservatives.

The reason that conservatives tend to be less concerned with income inequality is not because that they're ignorant. It's not because they're calloused. It's not because they have less of a sense of a morality. It has to do with the fact that they see the world differently.
sorry to take away all of your arguments, liberals... apparently, statistically speaking, you're the rich ones... but, somehow, you've made the claim that the conservatives are the 1%... not true... you've claimed they're ignorant, callous, and immoral... not true.

what is true is that liberals are the cause of their own problem... the expectation that someone else owes you anything sets up a logical fallacy... Person A expects value V from society Z... society Z is the sum total of all persons, "n"... for all persons "A" to each receive V from Z, then Z owes a total of V*n (split equally to A*n)... simple math... (V*n)/(A*n)= V/A or 1V per 1A... however, for society to have V*n to give, it must receive from A*n the total amount for distribution... that means, each A must contribute 1V to Z prior to receiving their 1V in return... liberals don't want to give into the system from which they expect to receive... but if no one puts into the society, it is fallacious to think you can get anything out of it... maybe you've heard of squeezing blood from a turnip?

liberals would have you believe that there are two groups giving into society and two receiving... person A is poor and needy (proletariat)... person B is rich and needless (bourgeoisie)... therefore, the above math goes something like this: 0A+2B=V1 (value put into society Z)... V1=V2 (value taken from society)... V2=2A+0B... "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." - Karl Marx

With regard to what happiness is (men) differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honor. They differ, however, from one another -- and often even the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor.

Happiness is desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. But honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves, but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient.

Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals? PBS NewsHour Dec. 9, 2011 PBS

No comments:

Post a Comment