Reuters is reporting that Denmark is the world's happiest country. At least that's according to the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research (ISR). [Click to read the article I just read and a press release from the institute.]
The ISR makes the point that happiness is increasing which is probably a less sexy headline than "Denmark world's happiest country, survey finds."
This survey has been conducted since 1981 and uses just two questions to create a composite measure of subjective well-being. The questions are: "Taking all things together, would you say you are very happy, rather happy, not very happy, not at all happy?" And, "All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?"
I don't quite get it.
It would seem that anyone who majored in any social science at even a 3rd rate college would know better than to assume that people in all countries will give equally veridical accounts of their happiness. There are different cultural norms regarding such self-reports. Or, at least, there is reason to suspect that there might be. Some cultures may consider it bragging to say that you are happy...
So isn't it entirely possible - or at least worth ruling out - that cross-country differences in the ISR's happiness index are mere cultural artifacts and not genuine differences in happiness? I am much more comfortable with their use of the data within a given country as opposed to across countries, because in such analyses the cultural bias is greatly reduced. But even intra-country analyses are influenced by demographic and sociocultural shifts. Migration and even demographic shifts (like the aging boomers in he U.S.) could potentially sway these scores.
I hate to argue with something like this. The folks who run these surveys are social scientists who do this for a living. But as far as I can tell, this is a fatally flawed research methodology.
What am I missing?
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Friday, July 4, 2008
A slice of heaven
One of my favorite pleasures is to lie out on my deck with a nice cigar, a good scotch and something intelligent to read - with no wife or kids around to make noise and ruin it.
I just spent an hour lying out on my deck enjoying a nice breeze, smelling the fragrant applewood smoke wafting from my smoker, smoking a great cigar purchased for me by my son, drinking a good scotch (Talisker) purchased for me by my soon to be ex in-laws and poured by my daughter and enjoying the company of my 3 wonderful kids.
I'm not sure it gets any better than that.
[If you're female between the ages of 23.7 and 40, highly intelligent, a nonconformist, very good looking, and you think that experience could have been topped, I'm open to being proven wrong.]
I just spent an hour lying out on my deck enjoying a nice breeze, smelling the fragrant applewood smoke wafting from my smoker, smoking a great cigar purchased for me by my son, drinking a good scotch (Talisker) purchased for me by my soon to be ex in-laws and poured by my daughter and enjoying the company of my 3 wonderful kids.
I'm not sure it gets any better than that.
[If you're female between the ages of 23.7 and 40, highly intelligent, a nonconformist, very good looking, and you think that experience could have been topped, I'm open to being proven wrong.]
Thursday, July 3, 2008
An ontological problem
I was having a very interesting discussion a few nights ago. Somebody asked the question "what would you do differently if you didn't care what people thought of you?" In one way, this is a silly question. Because the ability of a person to answer it completely may presuppose that they already don't care what people think of them. If I place a high value on what people think of me such that I haven't already behaved publicly in a certain way, I'm not that likely to tell you about it. So I would not have answered that question in this group of people by telling them that if I didn't care what people thought of me I would strip off my staid Banana Republic cargo shorts and my basic t-shirt to reveal the hot pink satin matching panties and bra set that I like to wear underneath my clothes for kicks. Ooops. Have I revealed too much? You see? I wouldn't be any more likely to reveal that as an answer to a hypothetical question than I would be to reveal it by simply doing it.
Anyway, people answered the question is unsurprising ways. I made the point that the question is very complex. Because the you that is answering the question has been designed to care about the opinions of others. Nature and nurture both conspire to make you care deeply about how other people think about you. Even before you emerge from - well, you know where you came from - you already seek comfort in the voice of your mother. So how exactly are you answering this question in the first place? The question assumes that we can peel away the part of you that cares what other people think, to reveal your "true" self. The one that would do all sorts of things if only that pesky need for approval could be eliminated. The question assumes that there would be a you left if we peeled away the need for approval.
But it's not so clear that this is the case. It might be true that your regard for the opinions of others about you is part of the fabric of your self. That inherent to your self is the need for the approval of others.
Well this is problematic for me. Because I passionately believe that every person is sui generis. That we each have a unique soul or mind and that we are obligated to let our own unique beauty illuminate the world (in a responsible way of course). I believe that both we and the world are better off when we all pursue truth and beauty as we feel we must and when we act in harmony with our inner dictates rather than conform to social pressure. [Subject, of course, to the sorts of limitations that John Stuart Mill would have felt comfortable placing on individual liberty.]
So how can I continue to so passionately believe in Emersonian self-reliance when it is not entirely clear - even to me - that our most precious and deeply personal self can even exist in the absence of conformity?
I don't know yet. But some answers are starting to take shape.
1) We do have a pure soul that is not composed in any way of our regard for the opinions others have of us. Our need for approval is, in fact, a layer placed over that (at a very early age - even before you are born). That layer imperfectly covers our soul and it covers it in different ways for different people. So at times our uniqueness shines through and it does so more for some people than others. This may help explain why, as a fellow in this discussion pointed out, old people tend to lose their inhibitions and just don't care about what others think. Perhaps this layer erodes as people age. Perhaps there's a neurological explanation. Or maybe they just have fewer friends left alive and they don't really care what other people who aren't their friends think (and they're retired so there are no professional consequences).
2) We do not have a pure soul that exists apart from any need for approval. But our uniqueness (which may be a constantly evolving emergent phenomenon) can include the aspects of our soul for which we seek approval, and the manner and degree to which we do so. Clearly we all feel and suppress urges from time to time to express certain thoughts or emotions that we feel would earn us the disapproval of society. So our soul cannot be just a conforming approval-seeker. But it does include that element and that element is wrapped up with the individual element. They live together in a truce. For some, that truce is stable. For others, it is in perpetual upheaval as the need for approval and the need for individuality vie for supremacy.
Alright. Enough for now. But this is an interesting topic and I was glad to have reason to think and write about it.
Anyway, people answered the question is unsurprising ways. I made the point that the question is very complex. Because the you that is answering the question has been designed to care about the opinions of others. Nature and nurture both conspire to make you care deeply about how other people think about you. Even before you emerge from - well, you know where you came from - you already seek comfort in the voice of your mother. So how exactly are you answering this question in the first place? The question assumes that we can peel away the part of you that cares what other people think, to reveal your "true" self. The one that would do all sorts of things if only that pesky need for approval could be eliminated. The question assumes that there would be a you left if we peeled away the need for approval.
But it's not so clear that this is the case. It might be true that your regard for the opinions of others about you is part of the fabric of your self. That inherent to your self is the need for the approval of others.
Well this is problematic for me. Because I passionately believe that every person is sui generis. That we each have a unique soul or mind and that we are obligated to let our own unique beauty illuminate the world (in a responsible way of course). I believe that both we and the world are better off when we all pursue truth and beauty as we feel we must and when we act in harmony with our inner dictates rather than conform to social pressure. [Subject, of course, to the sorts of limitations that John Stuart Mill would have felt comfortable placing on individual liberty.]
So how can I continue to so passionately believe in Emersonian self-reliance when it is not entirely clear - even to me - that our most precious and deeply personal self can even exist in the absence of conformity?
I don't know yet. But some answers are starting to take shape.
1) We do have a pure soul that is not composed in any way of our regard for the opinions others have of us. Our need for approval is, in fact, a layer placed over that (at a very early age - even before you are born). That layer imperfectly covers our soul and it covers it in different ways for different people. So at times our uniqueness shines through and it does so more for some people than others. This may help explain why, as a fellow in this discussion pointed out, old people tend to lose their inhibitions and just don't care about what others think. Perhaps this layer erodes as people age. Perhaps there's a neurological explanation. Or maybe they just have fewer friends left alive and they don't really care what other people who aren't their friends think (and they're retired so there are no professional consequences).
2) We do not have a pure soul that exists apart from any need for approval. But our uniqueness (which may be a constantly evolving emergent phenomenon) can include the aspects of our soul for which we seek approval, and the manner and degree to which we do so. Clearly we all feel and suppress urges from time to time to express certain thoughts or emotions that we feel would earn us the disapproval of society. So our soul cannot be just a conforming approval-seeker. But it does include that element and that element is wrapped up with the individual element. They live together in a truce. For some, that truce is stable. For others, it is in perpetual upheaval as the need for approval and the need for individuality vie for supremacy.
Alright. Enough for now. But this is an interesting topic and I was glad to have reason to think and write about it.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
A poem in honor of mothers
I write poetry fairly often. I have no idea if anyone else would think it's good but I don't really care much. I mostly write it for myself as a means of catharsis. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. It's usually quite personal and I'm not comfortable sharing it with the world.
But a few days ago I had lunch with my friend Tom. Tom's mother recently passed away and I decided to write a poem about mothers. This is not specifically about me or my own mother (who I think is a great mom). It's about mothers in general. I am posting this in honor of Tom who I think is a generally inspirational guy. And, of course, in honor of my own mother. If I didn't think she was great, this poem would have come out very differently or not at all.
Incidentally, you can read Tom's eulogy for his mother on his blog. I have thankfully never had to think about how I would eulogize anyone. But I find this eulogy so powerful in its simplicity. And I can imagine Tom delivering it with magnificent pathos.
Mother's Footsteps (6-28-08)
The craters were massive to my young eyes
Each held my whole world
And I glided above
In the hands of love
Untouched by the dangers below.
In time my eyes grew older
My feet hit the floor
And with affected resentment
I filled in those craters
With ersatz omniscience.
Years passed and I forgot
That I knew what I didn't know
My massive feet stamped holes
In the unforgiving soil
But they always seemed smaller
Than the craters of my youth.
And now between dusk and dawn
I see those craters stretching
For miles ahead
And hope I can fill them
As once I was taught.
But a few days ago I had lunch with my friend Tom. Tom's mother recently passed away and I decided to write a poem about mothers. This is not specifically about me or my own mother (who I think is a great mom). It's about mothers in general. I am posting this in honor of Tom who I think is a generally inspirational guy. And, of course, in honor of my own mother. If I didn't think she was great, this poem would have come out very differently or not at all.
Incidentally, you can read Tom's eulogy for his mother on his blog. I have thankfully never had to think about how I would eulogize anyone. But I find this eulogy so powerful in its simplicity. And I can imagine Tom delivering it with magnificent pathos.
Mother's Footsteps (6-28-08)
The craters were massive to my young eyes
Each held my whole world
And I glided above
In the hands of love
Untouched by the dangers below.
In time my eyes grew older
My feet hit the floor
And with affected resentment
I filled in those craters
With ersatz omniscience.
Years passed and I forgot
That I knew what I didn't know
My massive feet stamped holes
In the unforgiving soil
But they always seemed smaller
Than the craters of my youth.
And now between dusk and dawn
I see those craters stretching
For miles ahead
And hope I can fill them
As once I was taught.
Outlook: A serial killer of time
Outlook is a mass murderer. It kills people in increments of anywhere from 1 to 29 minutes.
When you click on the Outlook calendar to setup an appointment or meeting, the default is a 30 minute meeting. And the calendar is setup in half hour increments. So what do people do? They create meetings that start on the hour or half hour and that are some multiple of 30 minutes in duration.
Why?
Isn't it possible that something will take 5 minutes to discuss? Or 27? And why must everything start on the hour or half hour? That's just weird! It kills time and it makes it harder for people to think about the value of their time or the time they are asking for from others.
What if you had to type in the minutes? Maybe you'd stop and think about how much time you really need. Maybe 13 minutes will do.
So I propose we all start setting up meetings that start at strange times. Like 11:47 (which I think all can agree is objectively weird). Or 1:23. And make them as long as you think you need.
It's your time. Use it wisely.
When you click on the Outlook calendar to setup an appointment or meeting, the default is a 30 minute meeting. And the calendar is setup in half hour increments. So what do people do? They create meetings that start on the hour or half hour and that are some multiple of 30 minutes in duration.
Why?
Isn't it possible that something will take 5 minutes to discuss? Or 27? And why must everything start on the hour or half hour? That's just weird! It kills time and it makes it harder for people to think about the value of their time or the time they are asking for from others.
What if you had to type in the minutes? Maybe you'd stop and think about how much time you really need. Maybe 13 minutes will do.
So I propose we all start setting up meetings that start at strange times. Like 11:47 (which I think all can agree is objectively weird). Or 1:23. And make them as long as you think you need.
It's your time. Use it wisely.
Dear customer: #$%@ you!
I really like eBags. I like the website - it's my favorite shopping site. And I really love their house brand. The products are terrific.
But they've now ticked me off. I've recently ordered a few items from them. And the last two orders were messed up. With the same problem. Both times, their website listed the order as having been delivered. Both times there was a list of items that had been in the order with a tracking number for each item ordered. And both times, even though the site listed an item as having been delivered (with other items), it was left out. In other words I didn't get all the stuff I ordered even though their website told me I had.
If I didn't already like them so much they would be on the banned list. But I do like them. So I asked the online chat rep what was going on and what they would do to make sure it didn't happen again. And I got a totally lame scripted answer. You can read the transcript of the chat session below. I'm noticing more and more customer service reps are following a new script which includes over the top politeness. I suppose that's OK. But that needs to be layered on top of functional delivery. Answer my damn question! I'd rather have a surly rep answer my question than a sweet one evade it.
Chat InformationPlease wait one moment and our specialist will be right with you. We thank you for your patience!
Chat InformationYou are now chatting with 'Smith'
Smith: Thank you for using eBags Live Chat support. May I please have your name to make this session more interactive?
you: Adam
Smith: Hi Adam!
you: I am inquiring about order XXXXXXX
Smith: How may I help you?
Smith: Please give me a moment, let me see what I can find here.
you: I received everything but the packing cubes. The package was delivered. Your website tells me that the packing cubes match with a tracking number that had a bunch of other items as well. Those items were in the box and the cubes were not.
Smith: I am checking on that.
Smith: Please give me a moment.
Smith: Did you receive all the items except the item - eBags - za Portage Mini Toiletry Kit - Denim ?
you: I got that kit. I didn't get the packing cubes
Smith: Oh ok.
Smith: Please give me a moment.
Smith: I have sent a request to our warehouse to confirm that the missing item - eBags - Packing Cubes - 3pc Set - Titanium can be shipped out. We will follow up with an email once we have confirmation.
you: Thanks. This is now the second time this has happened to me. Twice in a row actually. Why?
Smith: I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience and frustration this has caused you.
Smith: We will contact you with the exact status of this missing item via email as soon as possible.
Smith: I appreciate your patience in this regard.
you: OK. Apology accepted I suppose. But something is broken in your supply chain. Can you tell me what will be done so that this doesn't happen a third time to me?
Smith: We will make sure that this issue does not happen in future.
But they've now ticked me off. I've recently ordered a few items from them. And the last two orders were messed up. With the same problem. Both times, their website listed the order as having been delivered. Both times there was a list of items that had been in the order with a tracking number for each item ordered. And both times, even though the site listed an item as having been delivered (with other items), it was left out. In other words I didn't get all the stuff I ordered even though their website told me I had.
If I didn't already like them so much they would be on the banned list. But I do like them. So I asked the online chat rep what was going on and what they would do to make sure it didn't happen again. And I got a totally lame scripted answer. You can read the transcript of the chat session below. I'm noticing more and more customer service reps are following a new script which includes over the top politeness. I suppose that's OK. But that needs to be layered on top of functional delivery. Answer my damn question! I'd rather have a surly rep answer my question than a sweet one evade it.
Chat InformationPlease wait one moment and our specialist will be right with you. We thank you for your patience!
Chat InformationYou are now chatting with 'Smith'
Smith: Thank you for using eBags Live Chat support. May I please have your name to make this session more interactive?
you: Adam
Smith: Hi Adam!
you: I am inquiring about order XXXXXXX
Smith: How may I help you?
Smith: Please give me a moment, let me see what I can find here.
you: I received everything but the packing cubes. The package was delivered. Your website tells me that the packing cubes match with a tracking number that had a bunch of other items as well. Those items were in the box and the cubes were not.
Smith: I am checking on that.
Smith: Please give me a moment.
Smith: Did you receive all the items except the item - eBags - za Portage Mini Toiletry Kit - Denim ?
you: I got that kit. I didn't get the packing cubes
Smith: Oh ok.
Smith: Please give me a moment.
Smith: I have sent a request to our warehouse to confirm that the missing item - eBags - Packing Cubes - 3pc Set - Titanium can be shipped out. We will follow up with an email once we have confirmation.
you: Thanks. This is now the second time this has happened to me. Twice in a row actually. Why?
Smith: I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience and frustration this has caused you.
Smith: We will contact you with the exact status of this missing item via email as soon as possible.
Smith: I appreciate your patience in this regard.
you: OK. Apology accepted I suppose. But something is broken in your supply chain. Can you tell me what will be done so that this doesn't happen a third time to me?
Smith: We will make sure that this issue does not happen in future.
I think my GPS is stupid
I've got a lower end Garmin Nuvi. I love having a GPS. It makes me feel all-powerful. Oh man. I just revealed my innermost weirdness to all 3 people who read this blog. Anyway, I think my GPS is stupid.
My GPS has a great feature. It predicts what time I will arrive at my destination. And it updates this from time to time. But here's the problem:
I live very close to New York City. Often when I plug in an address for directions, I get ridiculous predictions of my arrival time. As if Garmin hasn't got a clue that there is such a thing as traffic in major cities.
I know that higher-end models have a traffic feature where they access a traffic database and can route you around traffic. Maybe these models are more capable of predicting arrival time because they "know" where there is traffic. And I'm sure some techie will tell me how hard all of this is.
I don't care. When I look at my GPS screen and right off the bat it tells me that a trip from New Jersey over the George Washington Bridge and into Westchester will take 15 minutes, it makes me think that someone wasn't thinking. The device seems to predict arrival time based on the distance and the speed limit on the road (it knows the difference between a highway and a local road). But not all miles on 55 MPH roads are the same. Driving from Fort Lee, NJ right over the George Washington Bridge into Manhattan can easily take 20 minutes. Driving that same mile west rather than east would take 1 minute. We all get this. It's obvious.
So I would suggest that if Garmin can't make this feature work intelligently on my low-end device, that it shouldn't offer the feature at all. It makes them look stupid and incompetent. And for what? The core functionality (i.e., telling me how to get from one place to another) works wonderfully. Why sacrifice your image for a nice to have?
My GPS has a great feature. It predicts what time I will arrive at my destination. And it updates this from time to time. But here's the problem:
I live very close to New York City. Often when I plug in an address for directions, I get ridiculous predictions of my arrival time. As if Garmin hasn't got a clue that there is such a thing as traffic in major cities.
I know that higher-end models have a traffic feature where they access a traffic database and can route you around traffic. Maybe these models are more capable of predicting arrival time because they "know" where there is traffic. And I'm sure some techie will tell me how hard all of this is.
I don't care. When I look at my GPS screen and right off the bat it tells me that a trip from New Jersey over the George Washington Bridge and into Westchester will take 15 minutes, it makes me think that someone wasn't thinking. The device seems to predict arrival time based on the distance and the speed limit on the road (it knows the difference between a highway and a local road). But not all miles on 55 MPH roads are the same. Driving from Fort Lee, NJ right over the George Washington Bridge into Manhattan can easily take 20 minutes. Driving that same mile west rather than east would take 1 minute. We all get this. It's obvious.
So I would suggest that if Garmin can't make this feature work intelligently on my low-end device, that it shouldn't offer the feature at all. It makes them look stupid and incompetent. And for what? The core functionality (i.e., telling me how to get from one place to another) works wonderfully. Why sacrifice your image for a nice to have?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)