The samples in Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, and the UAE are more urban, more educated, and/or more affluent than the general population. The survey results for these markets should be viewed as reflecting the views of the more “connected” segment of their population.

It's pointless survey.

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's usually an annotation because Internet/phone penetration among the rural, uneducated, and poor in those countries isn't great. They don't have means to survey these people. Surveying the people who do have access to Internet is representative of what "normal people" feel.

The US has ~91% Internet penetration, while China only has 73% and India only 43%.

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's a factor sure, but someone living in rural country and urban city will have different happiness index based on their living conditions and satisfaction drivers. So comparing X with Y = flawed results.

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Isn't happiness the goal? Why does it matter what their driver is?

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Tell me you didn't read the report without saying you didn't read the report. Satisfaction drivers are the metrics for the happiness in that report.

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Then your statement doesn't make sense lol

The rural/urban divide isn't unique to China or India or Brazil. It's everywhere. Drivers are always different across the urban/rural divide.

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That is the point. When you exclude that group of people only from 15 out of 32 surveyed countries, you skew the results for the whole survey. You can't draw parallel conclusions from different samples.

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The goal of this comparison is to compare urban-to-urban, because those countries which don't have this exclusion have relatively tiny rural populations.

[–] Paragone@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Then it ISNT a

"Global Happiness Index"

, rather it is a

"Global URBAN Happiness Index",

and such profound mislabeling of things is disinformation, not journalism.

Which, itself, is so systematic & profound, nowadays, that there isn't much hope for integrity to win, in our world, now, anyways.

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That is the conclusion you have drawn, but it's not part of the methodology listed in the survey. They haven't excluded rural participants from the 17 countries, while explicitly excluding them from 15 countries. If you see no issue with that, enjoy your blinders, but please stop spreading misinformation.

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago

Rural populations are negligible and covered under other factors in a number of countries (in the US, Internet access). It's not worth mentioning because it's not a relevant part of data.

[–] Masimatutu@mander.xyz 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

...closely followed by Saudi Arabia. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of these happiness reports.

[–] zerfuffle@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

Idk I think I'd enjoy being obscenely rich off of my government's oil money

[+] yogthos@lemmy.ml -13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The real question is why western countries consistently score so low on these reports. If western countries are so great and free, then you'd expect people to be reporting high level of happiness across the board.

[–] Masimatutu@mander.xyz 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I do agree, but I don't think China performing well qualifies as World News, because subjective well-being is only loosely connected to actual experiences.

[+] yogthos@lemmy.ml -6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Subjective well-being is literally what happiness is. The question of whether you feel good is inherently subjective by its very nature. Valid criticisms could be found around the demographics being sampled, and people having access to the survey though. As people pointed out, many poor people don't have internet access in countries like India meaning that there's a bias in participation.

[–] Masimatutu@mander.xyz 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I meant subjective as in what you say. All that humans do is to strive to fulfill their own motivations, and communication is just doing so through interaction with other humans. The only reason for that what we say is connected to what we actually experience is that we don't like people finding out we are misleading them and as a result like us less.

Nobody else can really measure our happiness, though, so there is no concrete motivation to respond to such questions as accurately as possible, so we're much more inclined to just say what is socially the most favourable.

Like, do you genuinely reply how you are feeling when someone asks you how you're doing? I'd say most people don't.

[+] yogthos@lemmy.ml -6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

We're talking about people replying to a survey here and reporting how they feel. The difference from a question of how you're doing is with that question being largely rhetorical and being asked out of protocol as opposed to genuine interest. People obviously answer the question differently based on whether their expectation is that the question is asked out of genuine interest or out of politeness.

[–] Paragone@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Read Hofstede's "Exploring Culture", and consider that a person in a high-collectivity culture, which also is a high-power-distance culture, may well answer the survey with what "face" requires them to say, instead of answering with what they, themselves, feel.

If you aren't correcting for that, you're doing propaganda, not science.

Different cultures REQUIRE different subjectivities be taken-into-account.

I think it would be more valid to dig into specific dimensions of happiness, & make some of those objective ( cortisol-blood-levels, for measuring stress, e.g. )

WHEN you ask people in individualistic cultures a question, and THEN you ask people in collectivist cultures the SAME question, they are not answering the same question, they are answering the social-pressure question, instead.

It makes complete mincemeat of cross-cultural measuring of "objective" things.

Try reading Lanier's "Foreign to Familiar" book, & understand just HOW different warm-vs-nordic cultures are, in instinct/reactions,

then it should be more obvious how such surveys are disinformation, not information.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -4 points 10 months ago

Happiness is qualia and it's an inherently subjective thing. Talking about it as science is nonsensical. However, we can consider the quality of a culture by whether the subjective experience this culture creates ends up being mostly positive or negative. If a particular cultures results in majority of people being miserable then perhaps it needs to do some self reflection.

[–] Masimatutu@mander.xyz 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, but in the end, there is no real motivation to respond accurately to surveys either. It's just that it's our reflex based on our previous social interactions that it feels wrong to respond inaccurately. Similarly, it will feel wrong when responding in a socially unfavourable way to a question about well-being, even if it's a survey.

Additionally, longer-term happiness is a quite vague experience so there isn't much keeping one from interpreting it however you like.

Of course, I'm not saying that there is no truth to the report. I'm just saying it's not particularly newsworthy because the numbers aren't particularly concrete and it doesn't describe any single important event at all.