>>>>>>>>>>>>I am here to make everyone happy! http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2042446720080320?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I think maybe the correlation is that people with money spend it on others because those without it are less able to. Therefore, people with money are happier.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Quote:"Regardless of how much income each person made, those who spent money on others reported greater happiness, while those who spent more on themselves did not,"
>>>>>>>>>>My emphasis
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How about this emphisis. I didn't see them mention how much disposable income each person had. If your expenses are greater then your income, you essentially do not have money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, it didn't specifically mention disposable income - but this was a Reuters news feed not the published report. But since the participants were asked for details of their income and their outgoings I'd expect the researchers were capable of performing the simple calculation required - and also capable of recognizing that such research would be pretty pointless without doing so.
>>>>>>>>Best,
>>>>>>>>Viv
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Happiness is not a statistical category, just by definition: it cannot be measured; so these researchers wasted time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you ask someone if they are happy and they say 'Yes' then they are happy - by definition.
>>>>>
>>>>>Unfortunately, not. It means only that they said 'yes'.
>>>>It means they are or they're lying. For the sake of argument lets agree that the latter is not the case.
>>>>
>>>They did not lie, but many people feel impolite not answering seemingly simple question. In other words, this question can be answered in casual way, but statistics is a science (hopefully) so it should aim higher.
>>
>>Yes, statistics is a science and the statistics here are simple - 'x percent of people said they were happy'. What you are questioning is the reliability of the data. So do you think:
>>(a) It's not important to determine whether a population is happy.
>>(b) It's important but just asking them won't give the true result.
>>(c) We should measure a bunch of other things and use those to decide their level of happiness on their behalf.
>>(d) ?
>
>I would go with (c) if you replace 'should' with 'could'; though I think that (a) is good enough too.

I'm happy to disagree (but you'll have to take my word for it) (g)