Should Governments be responsible for raising happiness levels?

[Stu]

I wrote a post on this subject on my site but I think it's an important enough question to ask here too.

For the last couple years in the UK happiness has been in the news a lot and some government officials have even commented that it is government's responsibility to raise the GWB. (gross well-being, which is a play-on-words referring to GDP, which is gross domestic product)

Now this isn't just things like health-care or education but more personal growth oriented things. For example, this is a quote from one UK politician:

“Well-being can’t be measured by money or traded in markets. It’s about the beauty of our surroundings, the quality of our culture and, above all, the strength of our relationships.”

“Improving our society’s sense of well-being is, I believe, the central political challenge of our times.”

Do you think that government should be responsible for raising the GWB? And for all the Americans out there, or anyone with an election coming up, if one of the candidates you're not planning to vote for started talking about GWB, would you change your vote?

I think I would.

[PianoManGidley]

Originally Posted by Stu

And for all the Americans out there, or anyone with an election coming up, if one of the candidates you're not planning to vote for started talking about GWB, would you change your vote?

I think I would.

That's a very tall order--I would have to hear a very specific plan from any such politician as to HOW they wanted to go about doing that first. Happiness can be defined in so many personal ways, and therein lies many dangers, too--I'm sure people like Hitler and PolPot were aiming to raise the GWB of their people through the extermination of "undesirables."

[Brutha]

I'm sure people like Hitler and PolPot were aiming to raise the GWB of their people through the extermination of "undesirables."

Hitler would probably have seen people who speak about happiness as weak.

Bhutan is one country that doesn't want high GDP but GNH (Gross national happiness). And they measure it.
WorldChanging: Measuring Genuine Progress is a nice article about measuring progress.
There are many possible ways to measure and GDP isn't everything, but you should define exactly what you mean when you speak about concepts.
Otherwise it just words that can mean whatever the polticians want them to mean.

And for all the Americans out there, or anyone with an election coming up, if one of the candidates you're not planning to vote for started talking about GWB, would you change your vote?

Since GWB is an abbrevation for Gorge W. Bush talking about GWB in the US has another meaning

[Jennihul]

I think there is a big difference between a government being "responsible" for it's citizens happiness and a government taking steps to study why their citizens are unhappy and what can be done about it.

Happiness, by definition, is an emotion and cannot be bought, sold or given away to people. It can only be experienced from within and people in varying states of prosperity, wellness and physical and mental health can be, and are, happy despite their circumstances.

It's a personal choice. Not something your government can really do anything about.

Can they effect changes to increase the likelihood that people will feel free of the burdens that can affect overall happiness? Yes. But be responsible for happiness? No.


Jennifer

[fwellers]

No, I don't think so. My leanings are more toward libertarian, and therefore am more persuaded that less govt is better. A GWP department or policy or set of policies would be probably grow govt a lot, and would insinuate itself into all areas of govt.

These days, when govt is asked to do more and more, our freedoms and liberties become less and less.

Nope. Not for me.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Jennihul

It's a personal choice. Not something your government can really do anything about.

What about a policy like New Urbanism though?

New Urbanism would promote general health ( from all the walking and bicycling) and would also foster more tight-knit neighborhoods where you could have more meaningful relationships with the people that live around you.

A well developed social network and good physical health would probably be high on just about everyone's list of what them happy.

[Brutha]

A GWP department or policy or set of policies would be probably grow govt a lot, and would insinuate itself into all areas of govt.

It's not about creating a new department but about changing the way progress is measured.

[Jennihul]

Originally Posted by Stu

What about a policy like New Urbanism though?

New Urbanism would promote general health ( from all the walking and bicycling) and would also foster more tight-knit neighborhoods where you could have more meaningful relationships with the people that live around you.

A well developed social network and good physical health would probably be high on just about everyone's list of what them happy.

Here, governments don't build houses. Developers do. New Urban is a hot trend here and seems fun. But they are building on land that has never been occupied, or was farm before being developed so the building of them is more practical. But they are still contributing to sub-urban sprawl problem.

The person would still have to take the steps to be friends with the neighbors, walk, ride bikes and socialize. Any well-adjusted human can do all those same things now with little or some effort regardless of where they live.

Are you going to raze current neighborhoods to create New Urban ones? Not practical. Can they support thousands of people in relatively small square footage in inner cities? Not the ones I have seen so far.

I am sensitive to my surroundings and consider myself very happy and social but I don't socialize with my neighbors one bit. They are cool. We just have friends we hang out with that aren't our neighbors. We live in a 1000 acre planned unit development, subdivided into maybe a dozen or more smaller neighborhoods.

Most couples here have kids. Their lives center around their school-aged kids. We don't have kids. Our lives center around partying with, travelling with and hanging out with our friends who don't have kids, have kids 19 and up and can hang out with us too, or have kids that are past college age.

So I don't think changing the neighborhood changes ones happiness levels necessarily. Unless where you were previously sucked wads. But that is still an internal choice.

Jennifer

[Stu]

No governments don't build houses, but they control where developers can build and what they can build. For instance some cities have urban sprawl boundaries and I know in my city (victoria) and the other major one close by (vancouver) there are intiatives to remodel existing buildings in the downtown core so that they conform more to new urbanism ideals. But I do agree that building on farm land or previously unused land is not being proactive.

I think you underestimate the influence living in that kind of setting has on your life though. I know when I was in university I lived on campus in townhouses and it was a very new urbanist type setting where people all walked to class together, socialized a lot more, and really belonged to a very interwoven community. I agree it's up to the individual to take the initiative but having more opportunities to take that initiative is an important part of the equation.

[Jennihul]

I wouldn't change my opinion of a candidate if they talked about legislation to improve the GWB. Sounds a little freaky deaky, actually. Like forced happiness.

Happiness is, like it or not, the responsibility of the individual and cannot be defined by another.

I'm not sure where this thread is supposed to be going....

Jennifer

[schola]

No, no a thousand times no!

From a personal development perspective, government mandated "happiness" for all completely contradicts the ideals of individual growth and personal achievement. It operates on an internal level. Anything the government could do happens on an external level.

How could the government be responsible for something as personal as your own happiness? Are you really so helpless that you are willing to give up responsibility for your own internal state?

How could they measure it? As a psychology student, I will be the first to tell you that psychologists don't have a clue as to what happiness is or how it should even be defined.

One of our gifts is the wide range of emotions we can feel. Even suffering has its own lessons and meaning.

What you are proposing is that we take away people's freedom to experience emotion.

[Amadeus]

Happiness just like most everything else is the individual's responsibility. I want the government to work for me and then get the f+++ out of the way. If you recall the federal government is responsible for social security, border control (national security), etc. It looks like they are doing a pretty damn horrible job.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by schola

No, no a thousand times no!

From a personal development perspective, government mandated "happiness" for all completely contradicts the ideals of individual growth and personal achievement. It operates on an internal level. Anything the government could do happens on an external level.

How could the government be responsible for something as personal as your own happiness? Are you really so helpless that you are willing to give up responsibility for your own internal state?

How could they measure it? As a psychology student, I will be the first to tell you that psychologists don't have a clue as to what happiness is or how it should even be defined.

One of our gifts is the wide range of emotions we can feel. Even suffering has its own lessons and meaning.

What you are proposing is that we take away people's freedom to experience emotion.

I'm not saying the government should say "happiness or else..." but should merely take steps to promote happiness. Whether we like it or not the policies of our governments impact us and our internal state. For example this psychological study shows the link between a countries economic well-being and subjective well-being (happiness) levels. So if, for example, a country was to be going through a recession (hint hint) the happiness levels of that countries citizens would be expected to fall in accordance with the poor economic performance. So poor economic policies promote depression (depression being the opposite of happiness). Why not promote a little happiness too?

In fact there was a study done recently to rank every country by their happiness levels. (Denmark came first, US came 23rd)

And you can measure happiness, you should take a look at positive psychology (its a rather new field of psychology so I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it, I know they don't have any classes on it at my university) and in particular the work of Dr. Seligman if you're interested in the psychology behind happiness. If you want to see a few tests designed by Dr. Seligman to measure an individual's happiness levels you can check out my post here, and if you want to see some of the research on happiness there is actually an entire journal devoted to the study of happiness called the Journal of Happiness Studies. You can probably get access to it through your school.

[Brutha]

And you can measure happiness, you should take a look at positive psychology (its a rather new field of psychology so I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it, I know they don't have any classes on it at my university) and in particular the work of Dr. Seligman if you're interested in the psychology behind happiness.

The problem isn't that you can't measure it but that you can measure it a thousand different ways and different ways to measure it will result in different public policy.

[fwellers]

what happens if they have some studies come out that show the happiness factor goes up when people have less money. Or the happiness factor goes up when people have more structured lives in some way.
I can just hear it now.

Yea, my administration tanked the economy, but that's a good thing. The masses are actually happier now.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The problem isn't that you can't measure it but that you can measure it a thousand different ways and different ways to measure it will result in different public policy.

Subjectivity is indeed a problem that science has a difficult time incorporating. And you're right, there are a thousand different ways to measure it and there is no right way and no wrong way but there is a best way to measure it.

I'm curious, would you make that same argument about depression, or social anxiety? Or the many other mental health problems that exist? They are mental states just like happiness, the only major difference being that they're on the other side of the spectrum. If all our measurements and understandings of those problems are as bankrupt as our understanding of things like happiness then what business do we have trying to use psychology to treat those people?

And fwellers, if they were happier what would the problem be?

[Ree]

Originally Posted by fwellers

what happens if they have some studies come out that show the happiness factor goes up when people have less money. Or the happiness factor goes up when people have more structured lives in some way.
I can just hear it now.

Yea, my administration tanked the economy, but that's a good thing. The masses are actually happier now.

Hehehehe! I got a real chuckle out of this post ... and unfortunately I don't think it's too far off the mark!! After all we are talking about career politicians here, right?? They can butt out of my happiness factor. I can take care of that myself

[Brutha]

If all our measurements and understandings of those problems are as bankrupt as our understanding of things like happiness then what business do we have trying to use psychology to treat those people?

Discussion about depression usually isn't that politicised.
The problem isn't so much happieness but that you have certain problem when you have political stakes.

If would also be wary about a politician who would speak about reducing depression as his prime challenge.

If you speak about GDP is it relativly easy to measure at the end of an administration whether that admistration has succeeded in increasing GDP.
If you have a bad definined standard of happiness you will have the government saying that they improved happieness and the opposition that they lowered happiness.

I also don't know whether your measure of happieness would promote short term thinking.
There are a lot of policy that could increase happieness in the short term but that would have bad long term consequences.

If you seek for new measures of success it is vital to seek some that would increase long term thinking.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Stu

I'm not saying the government should say "happiness or else..." but should merely take steps to promote happiness. Whether we like it or not the policies of our governments impact us and our internal state. For example this psychological study shows the link between a countries economic well-being and subjective well-being (happiness) levels. So if, for example, a country was to be going through a recession (hint hint) the happiness levels of that countries citizens would be expected to fall in accordance with the poor economic performance. So poor economic policies promote depression (depression being the opposite of happiness). Why not promote a little happiness too?

Do you believe the government the only institution that can do these things though? I am an economic conservative, so I think the government should have no, or very little, interference in the economy anyway.

I looked at the study you referred me to, and it I am not sure why you used it, since it shows that the lowest happiness was in former communist states of the USSR. This completely contradicts your point because it suggests that less government involvement in the economy fosters more happiness.

Even if you don't agree, you should agree that their are other non governmental institutions that can deliver these benefits to society. Charities, churches, even corporations, give billions of dollars each year to redevelopment projects, fighting poverty, educating inner city youth, etc.

And historically, private institutions have been more efficient than government at performing charitable roles in society. You wouldn't know it today, since the corrupt, inefficient Welfare State has largely forced out these institutions.
Book Review -- The Corrosion of Charity

And you can measure happiness, you should take a look at positive psychology (its a rather new field of psychology so I'm not surprised you haven't heard of it, I know they don't have any classes on it at my university) and in particular the work of Dr. Seligman if you're interested in the psychology behind happiness. If you want to see a few tests designed by Dr. Seligman to measure an individual's happiness levels you can check out my post here, and if you want to see some of the research on happiness there is actually an entire journal devoted to the study of happiness called the Journal of Happiness Studies. You can probably get access to it through your school.

Yeah I've studied Seligman's work quite a bit. It's cool stuff. I'm a psychology student and I don't like the emphasis on biology and medication that has crept into the field, but the Positive Psychology movement seems to be going in the right direction.

That is actually what I was alluding to in my post though. Seligman's work contradicts the previously held assumptions of many psychologists - that psychological well being is simply a lack of mental illness.

The whole point of the Positive Psychology movement is that for many years, psychologists have been missing the point.

Hell, it almost negates the entire principle behind the DSM, which is like the bible of psychologists everywhere.

If you have read any of his research papers, you know that they managed to reduce depression in subjects by having them do things like

-write a letter thanking someone they had never thanked properly and then reading it to the person

-write down 5 things they are thankful for each night

The activities they had them perform are almost laughable, yet they showed nearly the same improvement as people on antidepressants, even months later.

Attitude factors like gratitude and thankfulness are found in people who are the most resilient to depression, i.e. "the most happy."
These are internal factors.

Tell me how government housing programs you recommend could increase internal characteristics like these?