Posts Tagged happiness
Age vs happiness—some ups and downs
Posted by mark in Uncategorized, Wellness on December 19, 2022
The “mid-life crisis” provides endless amusement from over-the-hill fellows trying to hold on to their youth via frivolous purchases (e.g., a sportscar) and foolish escapades (e.g., young women). A few years ago, economist David Blanchflower pinpointed 47.2 as the age when unhappiness reaches this minimum.* However, my re-analysis of his data indicate a very plausible complication to this picture: A late 20s dip creating a double “U” in the happiness curve.
After importing Blanchflower’s life-satisfaction data** into Stat-Ease software, I applied a 6th order polynomial model—not just the 2nd order quadratic typically used for simplification. This more sophisticated analysis reveals an initial dip at 24.1 years before the ‘mid-life crisis’ coming at 50.9 years of age.
Of course, all of us differ individually in our happiness throughout our lives, but it is interesting to see how we compare to the average person in this regard. Although I would not mind a rejuvenation to my mid-20s physical fitness, it really is great to be well past the unhappiness of those youthful days and the subsequent stress that comes at mid-life. Old guys really do rule for happiness by my reckoning.
Cheers!
*Research Shows People Become Increasingly Unhappy Until Age 47.2, Inc., 1/30/20.
**Figure 2: “US Gallup Daily Tracker Cantril’s 11-step life satisfaction ladder, 2008-2018, no control curve”, Is happiness U-shaped everywhere? Age and subjective well-being in 145 countries, David G. Blanchflower, Journal of Population Economics, v34, pp 575–624, 9/9/20.
Positive news for troubling times: People really do like to help others
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior on June 19, 2020
Being Minneapolis based and seeing all the strife these last few weeks, it was heartening to see that this Large-Scale Experiment Shows People Want to Help Each Other, Even When It Costs Them Something.
“It [prosocial behavior] means doing something for someone else at a cost to yourself. One example would be paying for the person behind you’s order at the coffee shop. Or right now, wearing your mask in public. It’s a cost to you; it’s uncomfortable. But you contribute to the public good by wearing it and not spreading the virus. From an evolutionary perspective, it’s kind of perplexing that it even exists, because you’re decreasing your own fitness on behalf of others.”
– David Melamed, Associate Professor of Sociology at The Ohio State University, lead author of “The robustness of reciprocity”, Science Advances, 6/3/20
The experiment, which involved 700 people, showed prosocial behavior persisted no matter what the mix of motivators. It is very sweet to see anyone of any age, from toddler to senior, help one another. I don’t know of many things that give me more satisfaction than lending a hand. Come on everyone, be nice—you will feel better for it! It’s time we turned all the frowns upside down.
Money buys happiness unless you get caught up in the Easterlin paradox
Posted by mark in Uncategorized, Wellness on April 23, 2019
The March 23rd issue of The Economist provides an interesting graphic on GDP per person—a measure of wealth—versus self-reported happiness. Overall it shows an upward trend that increases life satisfaction by 0.7 points (on a 10-point scale) as GDP doubles.
China is a prime example of money buying more happiness. Sadly, us citizens of the USA (and many European countries) are subject to the Easterlin paradox, which puts a limit on how satisfied people get as their income rises, beyond which money cannot buy more happiness.
Check out this interactive online version of the happiness vs wealth posted by The Economist. There, if American, you will see with some satisfaction (misery liking company) that Netherlands and several other wealthy countries share our downward trend. However, Germany and Britain remain on the upswing. (I wonder with Britain now in the throes of Brexit if their GDP will shrink and, if so, suspect that their happiness will also fall off.)
So, bottom line, for those of us stuck in the paradox, would you rather be richer or happier? That is a tough question!
Costa Rica — the happiest place on Earth
Posted by mark in Uncategorized, Wellness on November 6, 2017
Life-sustaining Costa Rican “broccoli” tree towering over rain-forest trail on the slopes of the Arenal Volcano.
The latest issue of National Geographic awaited me upon my return from a wonderful vacation in Costa Rica. Based on my pleasant encounters, it was no surprise to me that this Central American country came first on the feature article about “Happiest Places”. Costa Rica also ranked #1 on the Happy Planet Index (HPI). See the Today.Com video here for the heads-up on what distinguishes Costa Rica and other joyful places around the world.
It seems to me that the recipe for happiness varies quite a lot, but one aspect of Costa Ricans that I like is them living “pura vida”—the pure, or simple, life.
“What I argue for are statistically driven things you can do to optimize your environment so you’re more likely to be happy for the long term.”
– Dan Buettner, Minnesotan author of The Blue Zones of Happiness (Source: The Atlantic.com “A Lazy Person’s Guide to Happiness”
P.S. The top 25 happiest USA cities are ranked here — the hometown for Stat-Ease came in at #22. 😊
Average American works 3.5 hours a day
Posted by mark in pop, Uncategorized on July 1, 2017
This headline statistic makes it seem that Americans are slackers. However all this work is being done by only 60% of our population and on weekends to boot. An alarming downward trend in sleep-time is being counteracted by increased proportion of work being done at home. Based on how I’ve been laboring later and later at my home office, I think these two statistics may be inversely correlated—more work means less sleep. For more details, see this Wall Street Journal briefing on the statistics released by the Labor Department last Tuesday. It includes data on how much cooking and housework the men do versus women. I’m taking a hands-off position on that. ; )
P.S. Bloomberg Business recently reported that Europeans work an hour less a day than Americans. See their statistics here. We really need to take cue from our colleagues across the Atlantic and take more vacation. Also, Europeans retire earlier than Americans. Here in the U.S. more people are working past 65 than at any point in the past 50 years. This strikes close to home with me turning 64 this month and still working full time. However, I like to keep busy and enjoy my work (and the pay), so I cannot complain. Also, I am thankful not to be forced into retirement. But one of these days…
Reject love at first sight until you achieve sufficient sample size
Posted by mark in pop, Uncategorized on February 14, 2017
Ok, this headline is a bit misleading. It’s not how quickly you fall in love that’s the problem, according to statisticians, it’s falling for the first potential mate that comes along. In other words, they calculate that only fools rush in. ; )
The optimal process for finding the love of your life is this:
- Estimate the number (“n”) of people you will date in your life.
- Take the square root (√) of n. This is your minimum (“m”).
- Keep records on the first m people you date and rank them by attraction—this is your benchmark (“b”). (I advise a 1-9 scale—the odd number allowing for those who are so-so, them being rated a 5.) Dump every one of them. (Statisticians have no heart when it comes to algorithms like this.)
- After you dump m dates, settle down with the first one who exceeds b. Ideally they will rate 10. (Yes, I know this goes above the scale but that is true love.)
I credit the Wall Street Journal last Friday (Feb. 10)* for alerting me to this recipe for finding a soul mate. However, this 2014 article by Slate breaks it down a bit better, IMO. They report that out of a choice of 10 people (n), the √n method (dictating you dump the first 3-4 potential partners) will get you someone that’s three-quarters (75%) perfect. Not good enough? Then go for 100 candidates (ditching the initial 10 suitors) and increase your score to around 90 percent.
Still not satisfied? Revert to the original benchmark of 37% rejection (the reciprocal of Euler’s number e—the base of the natural logarithm) based on the first calculations for the marriage problem that came out in 1960. However, I suggest you make it easier on yourself (and those who desire you but have no shot) by opening up your search sooner by the square root rule. Just keep reminding yourself after settling down that it could have been a lot worse if you had been a fool by rushing in on your first love.
“If you end up marrying the second best person, life is probably not going to be rotten.”
– Neil Bearden, Decision Behavior Laboratory, University of Arizona, author of “Skip the Square Root of n”, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 9 June 2005.
Happy Valentine’s Day!
* “In Love, Probability Calculus Suggests Only Fools Rush In”.
Scary statistics about Halloween
Posted by mark in pop, Uncategorized on October 27, 2016
I am torn whether it will be scarier to dress up as the nightmarish Freddie Krueger from Elm Street or as a statistics instructor. Which would you rather be locked in a windowless room with? Hmmm… best you not answer that.
Anyways, here are some frightful facts about the upcoming holiday reported in yesterday’s USA Today:
- 171 million Americans plan to partake in Halloween festivities. Crazy!
- On average, women will pay double for “non-sexy” Halloween costumes. The “sexy” costumes cost on average around $30, while the demure ones (boo!) go for near $60.
- Witch and pirate are the first two costumes of choice, followed by Trump and Clinton. Hmmm… is this a case of perfectly opposite correlation?
Happy Halloween!
Fewer kids, more pets—what this world is coming to
Posted by mark in Consumer behavior, pop on August 28, 2015
NBC’s Today show posted this album yesterday of an Australian dog named Humphrey posing as a newborn baby. Unbelievable! This is what the world is coming to—far fewer children and many more animals being welcomed to families.
The latest issue of Bloomberg Businessweek tells this story of a German pet store with a quarter of a million animals—the world’s biggest—to meet the ever-growing demand of empty nesters. I cannot decide what fascinates me more, the video of 32 weird animals for sale, or the “They Never Talk Back” graphic showing how many countries everywhere have increased per capita spending on pets. The United States leads the way with an arrow point well past $120 per person spent on their loved ones, that is, household animals.
“After food, clothing and medicine, the fourth item is cosmetics and the fifth is pets. That’s serious.”
–Pope Francis
Achieving a good group photo in more than a blink of an eye
Posted by mark in pop, Uncategorized on August 16, 2015
This summer has featured a number of occasions where I got roped into a group photo, always enduring an annoying number of “just one more” shots. With this in mind, a retrospective in September’s Popular Science on the 25th anniversary of the Ig Nobel awards caught my eye by calling out the 2006 Mathematics award. This honor went to two Australian researchers who calculated that, for group photos of 20 or fewer people, you must divide the count by three and take that many photos to ensure that everyone’s eyes will be open.
Check out what to do if there are more than 20 in your group, noting that things become hopeless beyond a count of 50, and the underlying statistical calculations detailed in “Blink-free Photos, Guaranteed,” Nic Svenson, Australasian Science, August 2006, p48.
Upon accepting the award for frivolous research, the lead scientist, physicist Piers Barnes, said that
“We are proud to have made a gross simplification of complex physiological and psychological factors backed up with no empirical data. Like many other theories, if enough assumptions are made, we are confident that our expression holds.”
(Source: This phys.org press release.)
Research on happiness encourages smiles
The American Society of Quality did well by bringing in Harvard researcher and best-selling author Shawn Achor in to keynote their World Congress for Quality Improvement in Nashville this May. I was happy to hear him reinforce my practice of smiling at people whenever I think of doing so—this being a great way to generate good feelings all around. Often I make a little game of this by seeing if I can get a smile back. When I am really on a roll, especially when just taking a leisurely stroll, I also give a cheery “Hello”. Of course, some curmudgeons neither smile nor reciprocate with a greeting. That gets me trying even harder the next time to get some positive feedback for my joviality.
Achor noted that top-rated hotels require their staff go by the 10-5 rule—giving their lodgers a smile at 10 feet and a greeting at 5—in the process generating far more goodwill than they would do by just going about their work. He is working to get hospitals going 10-5, thus lightening up greatly what otherwise can be a very depressing environment.
If I really need to upgrade my smiling game, I take my granddaughter Laine along with me on my walk. How can you not give a grin back to this sweet seven-month-old (or big brother Archer pictured hugging her)? If you can keep a straight face looking at Laine, then I advise you take up poker for a living.
Here are some other nuggets that I gleaned from Shawn’s presentation:
- Don’t follow the “cult of the average” by trying to rope in the positive outliers—those individuals who are exceptional performers. I’ve seen this happen in schools where a teacher (not a good one!) gradually wears down a superior student to the norm, this being the easiest course rather than making any exceptions to the curriculum. On the other hand a conference presenter from Crayola found from their statistical studies that one of the workers packing boxes did so with abnormal precision. By studying this positive outlier they were able to revise their process so it produced far less defects in inventory control.
- Seeing potential problems is not pessimism, it is “rational optimism”. Along those lines a fellow whom Achor had just pumped up with his talk about happiness decided that he needn’t wear a seat belt anymore. Perhaps it may not be right for person to be painted as a pessimist when they call out risky actions like this.
The only downer on this whole deal is that it remains obscure why some people are just naturally positive, while others tend to be gloomy. Based on a sample size of 6 for siblings and 5 for offspring, I believe that everyone has a natural set-point for happiness. However, perhaps I am being overly optimistic (for the cheery sorts) or purely pessimistic (regarding those who seem to be always out of sorts).
P.S. On the topic of happiness, I wish this aplenty for all you moms for tomorrow’s Mother’s Day. As my grandson Archer explains, “My Papa is Mark, my Nana is Karen [my wife], my daddy is Ryan, and my mommy is Mom.” That puts everyone in the proper perspective.