Re: Why has life satisfaction stayed level over time?
Assuming "Happiness is also relative to our expectations" and "A better guide to well-being and human progress is whether people can achieve their goals and fulfill their values.":
Take white collar workers. What if we feel we are achieving less relative to what we see as our own potential? In an ossified world thick with bureaucracy and regulations and managerial hierarchies, we run into more roadblocks and frustrations. Perhaps technology has shown us what's possible, but we feel we are unable to harness it to its full potential without more autonomy.
This is a good essay, and I largely agree with many of its conclusions. I do, however, contest a few of your key points:
1) Regarding “Over the longest time spans we have data for, the correlation between economic growth and increases in happiness is weak to nonexistent.”
I think that the evidence of a correlation between economic growth and increase in happiness is actually quite strong:
2) Regarding “ We have no way to directly measure human well-being.”
If we cannot measure it, then how can we get more of it? Progress Studies as a discipline cannot offer much to society if we cannot measure progress. While it is true that there is not one incontestable means to measure material progress, I think that there are many, and they are all strongly correlated with per capita gdp:
3) Regarding “ A better guide to well-being and human progress is whether people can achieve their goals and fulfill their values.¹The good life is one of constantly discovering, pursuing, achieving, and maintaining values.”
I would agree with this, but I would argue that this is a good reason to separate out individual human fulfillment from the material progress for societies. A poor person in a poor society could experience human fulfillment from embracing the productive values, while a rich person in a rich society could experience misery by embracing counter-productive values.
Fulfillment is about the individual, while progress is about the society. It is importantly not to mix the two levels. Combining the two together only makes it less likely that Progress Studies will contribute nothing to society.
Love this essay, but there's something profoundly unsatisfying about saying "this thing is definitely happening, but we can't measure it". I have been pretty critical when I've seen that in other fields ("it's happening all around us, I swear; it just hides from the data collectors"). Perhaps one thing the progress movement should focus on is better quantifying the thing they (we) intend to improve.
I'm open to suggestions! But the only thing worse than not measuring something is pretending to measure it when you're not. So I'd rather have no direct metrics than bad metrics, especially when we have a lot of proxy metrics and they're mostly all telling the same story.
Not everything important can be quantified or measured.
For example, can one quantify their love for their partner, parents, or children? I’d say no. In fact, the very attempt to measure the unmeasurable reduces it to something else, maybe even something perverse. I’d argue that wellbeing or flourishing is such a thing.
You talk about the material standard of living and say it's not about happiness. But I'm only interested in material insofar as it makes people happier (in some broad, eudamonic definition of happiness). If people have more material wealth but are less happy, I would call that a failure and I think most people would agree. This suggests that there's something else that we're truly aiming for. And it's that something we don't have a metric for.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that being better off materially doesn't lead to happiness. I believe overall, it does. But we may reach a point where these things diverge, so I want to be sure we're focused on the right metric.
Yes, material standard of living and happiness are not the same thing, but the data is very clear that there is a causal relationship. I think material progress is worth investigating even if there is no direct relationship. That is the whole point of Progress Studies.
Yes, the two things might diverge in the future, but not yet. And even if it does, it will still be relevant for the poor and developing nations. You can focus your time on the happiness, but I am more interested in the material progress.
Progress Studies should not be a moral philosophy or a religion that tries to define what “we're truly aiming for.” It should be an applied social science.
I think happiness and fulfillment are best studied on the individual level, while material progress is best studied on a societal level.
Your points exactly explain why Progress Studies should not be a philosophy.
“when all of these measures are moving in the right direction, we can be confident that human well-being is, too."
I’m not convinced that creating the conditions (i.e. the measures) for human flourishing or well-being necessarily or deterministically leads to it. They seem necessary but insufficient.
If that’s the case, what else do we need? And what role does progress play in what’s missing?
I'm not so sure about this. Utilitarian ethics based around moods/happiness/utility are already well established and seem logical to me, seems like you're suggesting we ditch those for a new accomplishment-based ethics. Personal accomplishments only seem good to me because they're mood improving. Is your argument that we should prioritise accomplishments even they left us feeling empty or even if they were bad for your mood?
If the data suggests we could be happier switching to a more relaxed, but less productive econ model, where growth mainly focused on extending lifespans and shielding people from misfortune rather than consumption, I'm inclined to follow the evidence over switching to a new ad hoc system of ethics to preserve the status quo.
Schopenhauer made the observation that our basic desires (like reproduction) don’t make us happy. This is similar to your observation, but I think he sided with happiness over reproduction.
A lot of psychological responses are log-proportional, which allows us to comprehend vast ranges. E.g., loudness of sound. Not surprising if happiness is proportional to the log of well-being in some sense
I think it was Daniel Pink in his book Drive that said, human beings perform best and experience greatest satisfaction when
1. We see in control of our lives
2. We learn create master new things
3. We contribute to improving the world.
Autonomy, mastery and purpose together.
Re: Why has life satisfaction stayed level over time?
Assuming "Happiness is also relative to our expectations" and "A better guide to well-being and human progress is whether people can achieve their goals and fulfill their values.":
Take white collar workers. What if we feel we are achieving less relative to what we see as our own potential? In an ossified world thick with bureaucracy and regulations and managerial hierarchies, we run into more roadblocks and frustrations. Perhaps technology has shown us what's possible, but we feel we are unable to harness it to its full potential without more autonomy.
This is a good essay, and I largely agree with many of its conclusions. I do, however, contest a few of your key points:
1) Regarding “Over the longest time spans we have data for, the correlation between economic growth and increases in happiness is weak to nonexistent.”
I think that the evidence of a correlation between economic growth and increase in happiness is actually quite strong:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/does-material-progress-lead-to-happiness
2) Regarding “ We have no way to directly measure human well-being.”
If we cannot measure it, then how can we get more of it? Progress Studies as a discipline cannot offer much to society if we cannot measure progress. While it is true that there is not one incontestable means to measure material progress, I think that there are many, and they are all strongly correlated with per capita gdp:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/evidence-of-progress
3) Regarding “ A better guide to well-being and human progress is whether people can achieve their goals and fulfill their values.¹The good life is one of constantly discovering, pursuing, achieving, and maintaining values.”
I would agree with this, but I would argue that this is a good reason to separate out individual human fulfillment from the material progress for societies. A poor person in a poor society could experience human fulfillment from embracing the productive values, while a rich person in a rich society could experience misery by embracing counter-productive values.
Fulfillment is about the individual, while progress is about the society. It is importantly not to mix the two levels. Combining the two together only makes it less likely that Progress Studies will contribute nothing to society.
Love this essay, but there's something profoundly unsatisfying about saying "this thing is definitely happening, but we can't measure it". I have been pretty critical when I've seen that in other fields ("it's happening all around us, I swear; it just hides from the data collectors"). Perhaps one thing the progress movement should focus on is better quantifying the thing they (we) intend to improve.
I'm open to suggestions! But the only thing worse than not measuring something is pretending to measure it when you're not. So I'd rather have no direct metrics than bad metrics, especially when we have a lot of proxy metrics and they're mostly all telling the same story.
Not everything important can be quantified or measured.
For example, can one quantify their love for their partner, parents, or children? I’d say no. In fact, the very attempt to measure the unmeasurable reduces it to something else, maybe even something perverse. I’d argue that wellbeing or flourishing is such a thing.
I agree completely. I present a number of metrics here:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/evidence-of-progress
You talk about the material standard of living and say it's not about happiness. But I'm only interested in material insofar as it makes people happier (in some broad, eudamonic definition of happiness). If people have more material wealth but are less happy, I would call that a failure and I think most people would agree. This suggests that there's something else that we're truly aiming for. And it's that something we don't have a metric for.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that being better off materially doesn't lead to happiness. I believe overall, it does. But we may reach a point where these things diverge, so I want to be sure we're focused on the right metric.
Yes, material standard of living and happiness are not the same thing, but the data is very clear that there is a causal relationship. I think material progress is worth investigating even if there is no direct relationship. That is the whole point of Progress Studies.
Yes, the two things might diverge in the future, but not yet. And even if it does, it will still be relevant for the poor and developing nations. You can focus your time on the happiness, but I am more interested in the material progress.
Progress Studies should not be a moral philosophy or a religion that tries to define what “we're truly aiming for.” It should be an applied social science.
I think happiness and fulfillment are best studied on the individual level, while material progress is best studied on a societal level.
Your points exactly explain why Progress Studies should not be a philosophy.
Out of respect to Jason, if you would like to comment on my post, we can chat in the comments of that post…
“when all of these measures are moving in the right direction, we can be confident that human well-being is, too."
I’m not convinced that creating the conditions (i.e. the measures) for human flourishing or well-being necessarily or deterministically leads to it. They seem necessary but insufficient.
If that’s the case, what else do we need? And what role does progress play in what’s missing?
Looking forward to reading part 2!
Check out this idea to create alternatives to Hollywood. It is the third in a series of articles describing the pillars of parallel society.
https://swiftenterprises.substack.com/p/how-to-defeat-hollywood
Thank you for emphasizing the concept of autonomy.
If you would like to obtain technological independence, read more here:
https://swiftenterprises.substack.com/p/computational-independence
I'm not so sure about this. Utilitarian ethics based around moods/happiness/utility are already well established and seem logical to me, seems like you're suggesting we ditch those for a new accomplishment-based ethics. Personal accomplishments only seem good to me because they're mood improving. Is your argument that we should prioritise accomplishments even they left us feeling empty or even if they were bad for your mood?
If the data suggests we could be happier switching to a more relaxed, but less productive econ model, where growth mainly focused on extending lifespans and shielding people from misfortune rather than consumption, I'm inclined to follow the evidence over switching to a new ad hoc system of ethics to preserve the status quo.
Ok. So what
Schopenhauer made the observation that our basic desires (like reproduction) don’t make us happy. This is similar to your observation, but I think he sided with happiness over reproduction.
As I understand it, nothing made Schopenhauer happy
"Note that happiness scores are proportional to the logarithm of income."
This is interesting as power arguably increases linearly with wealth.
A lot of psychological responses are log-proportional, which allows us to comprehend vast ranges. E.g., loudness of sound. Not surprising if happiness is proportional to the log of well-being in some sense
Yes, good point ... I think what I wanted to get at is that psychology can sometimes trick us to not see important mechanisms.