Can someone recommended important, informative, scientific, factual,

File: a75bb297e72d8cc1001836bdeec05166.jpg (58KB, 500x469px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x469px

I'd prefer scientific and factual literature because being mislead on such an important topic usually doesn't turn out well, since you'd eventually stumble upon the correct (or most agreeable) opinion by which time you might have invested on your time in the wrong activities.

Pic related, best knowledge, self knowledge.

File: 1420143617053.png (367KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 500x400px

>>7757777

>>7757777
check'd

File: P(QUAD).png (10KB, 708x118px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 708x118px

>>7757777

Low probability bait.

>>7757777
The Science of Happiness by Stefan Klein covers a lot of that.

>>7757817
Thank you.

>>7757777
It is all reliant on self-reported variables.

>>7757927
Not my question (your comment is neither a book or a paper) but still I wouldn't mind discussing what you brought up:

Your statement is correct yes.

Now then, would you believe that GDP per capita is not a contributing factor to happiness across countries?

Some good advice on how to live a happy life is provided in The Conquest of Happiness by Bertrand Russell, a highly recommended read

>>7758111
Merci beaucoup!

How do we define happiness?

>>7759528

It's a state of well being, describing which completely is not possible with current day neuroscience.
As of know, you probably know what it is, or have felt it.
It's the kind of feeling you would get if you always had everything you desired.

Hard to, it's a feeling I have that I believe you have too, and I think you feel the same way about it that I do (or at least this is true for a huge chunk of society).

You could say it's our favorite beetle (See Beetle in a Box).

Interesting question nonetheless, feel free to share books/papers that answer it! Or try to!

>>7757932
To answer your question: I would think so on an intuitive level. But testing this scientifically is hard. How am I going to test this hypothesis? Asking people to fill in questionnaires is not going to cut it. We need to be able to rule out social desirability. I personally think, that it is impossible to scientifically investigate happiness. This renders the field of happiness research useless which was the point of my post. We cannot stress that enough. I believe you are wasting your time with this type of studies.

>>7759762
>I personally think, that it is impossible to scientifically investigate happiness.
>This renders the field of happiness research useless

I do not know what you mean by the word scientific here but:

Let's assume we can't make any objective, full proof claims about happiness.

1) Do you think there can be research conducted that can suggest what things lead to happiness and unhappiness most (more than 50 percent) of the time?

2) The invention of the modern antidepressant in pill form was likely "useful" for the many folk who suffered from depression and had their symptoms relieved by the medication. Would you say so? The invention of this medication in pill form did require some research onto whether it works, which I believe you'd agree did involve happiness research? This research eventually lead to many people being happier than they would have been if this research had not been conducted? Would you say this research was "useless"?

3) Would you say the happiness research done on how meditation programmes, physical therapy, etc positively affect people with depression were useful for the people who suffered form depression, since these studies helped promote these successful theories more (yes?) once people realized these were, on average, successful (yes?), leading to many more people taking part in these programmes? leading to, on average, an alleviation of their symptoms? Given this alleviation, would you say the word "useless" is applicable to happiness research?

Not many people claimed this research would be a waste of time, I'm very intrigued by why you would say so, please do respond!

>>7757777
brb moving to venezuela

>>7759781
1) No. Afaik all these studies simply ask participants to fill in a questionnaire. With this sort of self-report, it is very coveivable that they are complying to social expectations, norms etc. It is uncertain whether you are measuring happiness or other variables. It is impossible to rule out those alternative explanations. Therefore, it is not really science imo.

If there is another way to conduct these studies, I would like to hear it.

2) Actually, SSRIs in research are effective in 55% of participants compared to 50% on the control group participants that received a placebo. This negligible effect can be explained through active placebo effects. This simply means that perceiving a legit physiological effect of the SSRIs leads one to think they are being treated and increases well-being, whereas a control group participant does not perceive such a thing and hence will have less of a placebo-effect. You can read more about this from Kirsch.

Anyway, even if SSRIs were effective, they suffer from the exact same problem: self-reported questionnaires. To measure depression, the BDI or Hamilton something is used which are both simple questionnaires of specific symptoms of depression, like do you significantly more or less, or do you have truble falling asleep?

In research on depression, what can be done is using some objective behavioral variables. Instead of self-reported questionnaires, we can use measures of employment in the workforce, physical exercise, sleep patterns and what not to avoid the pitfalls of self-report.

3) This is a good point. Happiness research is useful here for indicating clinical practice and further, more stringent research. My point still stands, there is always a need for real control groups which are always lacking in this field. All of those programmes can be explained as meme power.

>>7759822
>In research on depression, what can be done is using some objective behavioral variables. Instead of self-reported questionnaires, we can use measures of employment in the workforce, physical exercise, sleep patterns and what not to avoid the pitfalls of self-report.

Every NEET is clinical depressed then.
Self-reported questionnaires are not that bad, they can at least place the results in a percentile scale.
Although i agree objective measures would be a nice complement, if interpreted by an specialist.

Clinical psycholgy and psychiatry are a huge mess desu nothing can save those fields

>>7759822

>Therefore, it is not really science imo.
Alright I can agree, it's not real science.

>Actually, SSRIs in research are effective in 55% of participants compared to 50% on the control group participants that received a placebo. This negligible effect can be explained through active placebo effects. This simply means that perceiving a legit physiological effect of the SSRIs leads one to think they are being treated and increases well-being, whereas a control group participant does not perceive such a thing and hence will have less of a placebo-effect. You can read more about this from Kirsch.

1) Here you use the word "effective" what do you mean by this? If they are not "effective" in terms of increasing happiness then what do you think they are "effective" at?

2) Also you seemed to have referred to some literature here which I would say is a paper on happiness, the kind that you called useless. Why is this paper exempt from uselessness?
Thanks for letting me know about it, I'd say it is an informative bit of literature.

>Instead of self-reported questionnaires, we can use measures of employment in the workforce, physical exercise, sleep patterns and what not to avoid the pitfalls of self-report.

3) If these are hard to collect information on, would you say we should rather not make any claims at all based on people's own perceptions of how happy they believe they are?

Would you not say that some direction about what tends to make people more willing to report they are happy is better than no direction about what can make people happy at all?

>>7759883
(Cont.)


>My point still stands, there is always a need for real control groups which are always lacking in this field. All of those programmes can be explained as meme power.

4) You claim this there is some need to "explain" there programmes, presumably, you are talking
about their "effectiveness". Assuming the core things taught in the programme itself are not helpful in themselves....

But are helpful in that people believe they are helpful (a placebo effect let's say or a betterment due to other factors, as a lot of literature suggests), do you really feel, as you seem to say, that there is no qualitative betterment to a person's well being or emotional stability (let's not call it happiness) if he reports it?

I mean, on average, do you believe that these self-reports have absolutely no grounding in the person's real emotional state? I'd agree that these are imperfect, and you can never know for certain, but, if you had make a wager, would you say that these have no grounding in reality at all?