Sentences to ponder:
Dr. Kahneman said unless the findings were replicated, he could not
accept that a spouse’s happiness had less impact than a next-door
neighbor. Dr. Christakis believes that indicates that people take
emotional cues from their own gender.
Read the whole fascinating article. You’ll find a link to the paper here.
[quote]Still, Professor Fowler said, “We are not giving you the advice to start smiling at everyone you meet in New York. That would be dangerous.†[/quote]
Well, that’s my advice. It’s not dangerous.
So this would support the idea that geography is a major factor in one’s happiness.
Sounds plausible to me. When my friends are unhappy or otherwise having difficulties (which is much too often these days…) I worry about them which stresses me out, and I am less happy myself, all else equal. Also, although I usually enjoy hanging out with my friends if they are depressed and unhappy then it feels more like an unpleasant chore. I hang out with them anyway because I don’t want to dump them when they’re down, but it’s very draining.
I need happier friends.
Wow. Now that my happiness affects Kevin Bacon, doesn’t that mean it qualifies as a bona fide externality. This of course means we need government-mandated happiness.
I heard Kahneman is writing a pop book, so I may be the first person to get to read one of their MR dream books:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/08/what-is-your-dr.html
Ha ha; was the Times actually serious? “A student of economics” nailed it — everything in the NYTimes article could be explained by groups of people being affected by a common causative factor, such as national economic conditions, local layoffs (or hiring), election results in a politically homogeneous area, or practically anything. In this area, for example, a winning season by the Pittsburgh Steelers has a remarkable effect. And, certainly, everyone in my neighborhood was smiling after 11/4
Comments on this entry are closed.