Author
|
Topic: Social Policy Implications of the New Happiness Research (Read 3741 times) |
|
Beneficientor
Adept
Posts: 22
Reputation: 7.47
Rate Beneficientor
Fidei Defensor
 
|
 |
Re:Social Policy Implications of the New Happiness Research
« Reply #15 on: 2004-09-09 00:08:15 » |
 |
Quote:| Well whatever the reason, they are doing it because at some deep level they think they are better off than not doing. In other words, it increases their quality of experience however they define it: their Q factor. |
Again, I can't concur on this. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.
For whatever reasons, people often willingly endure some form of purgatory that they don't feel will enhance their "Q" overall, now or in the future. Us human beings are strange creatures in that respect, driven by many strange forces. I, for example, always feel as if I must be doing something productive, achieving something. This could be anythign from getting some work done, or typing this message. I suppose you could say I do this so that I will feel satisfied after completing a task, thus enhancing my "Q", but again, I don't feel this is entirely the case. It is a drive that isn't related to satisfcation, happiness, or "Q".
People do not always pursue activities that make them emotionally satisfied, and they do not always do what they think is best for them. I think it is simply too broad a stroke to categorise all human beings' strange, complex, highly subjective, manifold and often perverse drives into one general definition. We are creatures of many motives, and many of them are an enigma even to those in possession of them.
That isn't to say I don't think "Q" is a good concept, because I think the idea is a useful tool for grouping together a certain subtle and important aspect of human character.
Quote:| Your definition of happiness is narrower than mine. |
I agree, but just to be clear, it is a deliberate distinction. I felt the apparent blunt approach to happiness was one of the major flaws of the idea of the basic HPF, and that is why I used a very basic model of happiness in my objections.
Quote:| Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like the Canadian gov't. :-/ |
I don't know enough about the Canadian Government to comment. To clarify, though, I am not advocating any particular policy, just pointing out the two different approaches a QPF could take.
Quote:To make this point a bit more concrete, should people be required to get an education? Not exactly torture (in most cases), but if you ask any grade school student if they would rather be doing something else rather than attending school at any given time, the vast majority would answer yes almost all the time. Yet we still force them to go with the assumption that it is for their own good, and they will eventually thank us for it. Are children a special case?
|
To answer the last point first, yes, they are, but only through the circumstance of their nature, and not any other factor. Generally speaking children are more vulnerable, less knowledgable, and less mentally developed people, and this demands special treatment if not a different paradigm.
I do not think people ought to have an education forced upon them, but I do think everyone should receive an education. If a free education system is available, then adults will want to use it because in general they have the rational capacity to know it'll do them good, and children can be persuaded by their parents or guardians (who can know better on their behalf) to receive an education in their interests without outrighting forcing them to.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Social Policy Implications of the New Happiness Research
« Reply #16 on: 2004-09-09 10:12:52 » |
|
Quote from: Beneficientor on 2004-09-09 00:08:15 Again, I can't concur on this. Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.
|
Possibly, but it still looks to me that we don't have a common understanding of the Q factor and that is the only reason you don't agree.
Quote:| For whatever reasons, people often willingly endure some form of purgatory that they don't feel will enhance their "Q" overall, now or in the future. Us human beings are strange creatures in that respect, driven by many strange forces. I, for example, always feel as if I must be doing something productive, achieving something. This could be anythign from getting some work done, or typing this message. I suppose you could say I do this so that I will feel satisfied after completing a task, thus enhancing my "Q", but again, I don't feel this is entirely the case. It is a drive that isn't related to satisfcation, happiness, or "Q". |
This doesn't make sense. If you would prefer to be doing something else (for whatever reason) then you would be doing something else. The fact that you feel a need to be doing something productive means that for you doing something productive is more desirable than the alternative. It is very important to note that I never claimed that our knowledge of which action will actually increase our Q factor is perfect, we can be, and certainly are often mistaken. But if our choices and decisions are not random then there must be a reason or explanation to them. There must be some criteria at some level the factors into the choice (in fact, probably many levels). If so, then it is possible to infer a decision process. The decision process must be weighing some relevant factors (and necessarily ignoring some unknown factors due to our finite limitations) to make one choice among many possibilities. If we do something voluntarily, it must necessarily be because that choice was rated higher than all others considered. The only other possibility is that the choice was random. Surely you don't think humans behave randomly? If so, then we will have to agree to disagree.
Quote:| People do not always pursue activities that make them emotionally satisfied, and they do not always do what they think is best for them. I think it is simply too broad a stroke to categorise all human beings' strange, complex, highly subjective, manifold and often perverse drives into one general definition. We are creatures of many motives, and many of them are an enigma even to those in possession of them. |
I know very well that we are creatures of many motives, that our knowledge of them is severely limited, and moreover that many motives are contradictory. Nevertheless, the motives combine somehow with our limited knowledge and poorly defined goals into emergent behavior. We must be trying to maximize some expectation ultimately, even if we might be mistaken.
The possible counter-examples to this assertion are all (I suggest) examples of when someone acts in a way to proves to be mistaken from our (an observer's) point of view. Even when someone commits suicide, it is because they think they are better off dead, or that punishing someone else is more important that going on living, or some other reason (usually mistaken) that a future of state of the world with them dead is preferable to one with them alive. This case pushes the boundaries of the definition of the Q factor because the acting agent is imagining a future in which they do not exist as if they are an observer which obviously has some inherent contradictions.
I would like to discuss any counter examples that you can come up with. This should result in either me explaining how it is not really a counter example (expanding your understanding of the Q factor), or me altering the definition of the Q factor to handle your example, or me abandoning the concept. In any case we should come to a common agreement.
Quote:
To answer the last point first, yes, they [children] are [a special case], but only through the circumstance of their nature, and not any other factor. Generally speaking children are more vulnerable, less knowledgable, and less mentally developed people, and this demands special treatment if not a different paradigm. |
True, but there will always be people that believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are less vulnerable, more knowledgable, and more mentally developed than the general population and that they therefore have the right and responsibility to create situations "for our own good". We call them politicians. 
Quote:
I do not think people ought to have an education forced upon them, but I do think everyone should receive an education. If a free education system is available, then adults will want to use it because in general they have the rational capacity to know it'll do them good, and children can be persuaded by their parents or guardians (who can know better on their behalf) to receive an education in their interests without outrighting forcing them to. |
I know you can hide the costs of an education system so that someone can be led to believe it is free, but that doesn't make it free, does it? Someone has to pay for the teachers and infrastructure. Do you mean free just to the students (ignoring their cost in time)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
