Talk:Satisfaction with Life Index

message: This article should be deleted because references 2,5 and 6 are invalidated and are not documental anymore.
5.75.24.98 (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: References are invalidated

message: I've flagged this article for deletion. It doesn't take a genius to look at that list and see many things wrong with it. First of all, the mere suggestion of ranking a subjective concept like satisfaction on a scale is laughable (Who's more satisfied, the billionaire who lost half his fortune in the stock market, or the poor kid in Africa who got to eat dinner for the first time in 4 days? Or is it the serial killer in Columbia who beat the national record for most murders in a week and gets bragging rights to all his junky pals??)
Second, the list itself completely and utterly contradicts real world statistics. It doesn't correlate at all with homicide/crime rates, poverty rates, income equality, civil rights, suicide rates etc.. in short, I could make up a list based on my current knowledge of the world that would be more credible than this one. This is just one big work of fiction.
Sbw01f (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares? I mean, who cares one bit what you think? Despite the general level of the commentary, this is Wikipedia and not Youtube, and here the comments you leave won't really change one bit the numbers that come from real sources. If you personally feel those numbers are wrong, why not go and change them in the source? Give a call to the UN, perhaps? Whatever you do, don't finger the values in the table. --Sigmundur (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Such a low Russia's positions have a more complicated psychological explanation than only wealth, health etc. It could sound absurd for western people, but the last decades of USSR its people's subjective quality of life was very high. Collapse of the USSR caused dramatic system changes, that was a kind of psychological trauma for almost every person. Some of former USSR members have successfully been thrown into european wealth, others remained in it's asian traditions without any weath ambitions, but many russians are still drowning in feeling abandoned and betrayed. --213.208.170.194 (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: It sounds like you're expecting this list to be more of a 'richest countries in the world' analysis, or 'safest countries in the world' or 'greatest life expectancies in the world'. Haven't you heard about the 'money can't buy happiness' realisation? It's creeping up on us in this modern world, at an individual, national and indeed global level!
I think you'll agree that an individual's happiness depends on a great deal of things; their upbringing, personal experiences, ambient culture, instilled values and morals, and of course the extent to which their primary needs are satisfied. Satisfaction is not just an assessment of the extent to which you're able to survive, it's about whether or not you're happy and grateful for what it is you're surviving! (and yes, that's very subjective).
It's quite easy to rate yourself out of ten as to how happy you are with your life at any one time. You're trying to argue that this sort of ratings system is 'laughable', because there is no control - no base rating as symptoms of satisfaction are too diverse. As you said, what one billionaire in the US views as satisfying or unsatisfying will differ to that 'poor kid in Africa who got to eat dinner for the first time in 4 days'.
Now I agree that it will differ - but don't you see that this difference between nations is the mechanism for this research in the first place? What you are arguing against in this article is the very basis of why this list has the potential to be viable (and indeed if further studies are performed, valuble!)
Imagine you have lived your life with an understanding of a particular cultural norm, say, very few children in your village have access to education, or you have to walk 5 miles a day to get clean water. If suddenly things begin to change in your generation (as they are in many developing countries due to humanitarian aid), and someone builds a bore and community resource centre, your gratitude would be immense and your satisfaction with your life would increase. Knowing how your life IS compared to how it WAS, and having no education or knowledge of the petty materialism the Western world is drowning in, you'd probably rate your satisfaction with life at least an 8 out of 10.
Conversely, if you imagine that you live in the US, you might be middle aged, have your own home, a job, a family and accessible medical care. Your biggest worry might be that you've gained 10 pounds since Summer and you want to quit your job cause you can't stand your boss. I guarantee that if you were asked to rate your satisfaction with life, you'd give it no more than a nice fat 5 out of 10 or so.
Many countries in the Nordic region for example are very satisfied because their national economy continues to improve and the quality of life of all individuals is continuing to increase. The US, further down the list, is a powerful nation but it has a great distribution of 'haves and have nots', and because the 'have nots' can clearly see the 'haves', they will be less satisfied with their own lives as they want more from it. Russia, even further down the list, hasn't been happy for decades as it's lost most of its previous economic and political power, and is still recovering from a post-soviet cultural and financial slump.
My point is, each individual grows to have expectations of what makes them happy and what makes them unhappy, what makes them feel fulfilled and what makes them feel unfulfilled. Essentially it's about cultural awareness, the level of distribution of quality of life within a nation, and improvement of that quality of life over time that will have the greatest effect on satifaction with life.
So I only need to say one thing to counter your Russia Vs. Columbia argument - and that's that Russia may appear better in the stats, but the quality of life in Columbia has improved the most over time, and THAT'S what this study ends up highlighting in the end.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.166.68.65 (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Mate I think you've completely missed the point.''' 

message: Do we need the huge table? Can't we just list the top ten or so? Whispering(talk/c) 20:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that a little better? --chris 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: This page is absolutely ridiculous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I think that

message: Sorry, just want to ask what is SWB that is mentioned on the page?
Perhaps a further elaboration on this will be good for those readers who found this article by chance or from search engine. Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.91.136.203 (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SWB?

message: http://poorbuthappy.com/colombia/
Bye!  —Preceding unsigned--Rubashkyn (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colombıa Poor But Happy!!!!! 

message: I don't see what some Colombia enthusiasts have a problem with in this. It shows columbia as being ranked right up there with the United States, and higher than russia, effectively proving that it already takes into account exactly what you are complaining about. -(71.202.181.87 (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chill friends

message: someone had this thing labeled as if it was a happy planet index map. it is nothing of the sort, that is a completely different measure that takes into account environmental impact, and has different numbers than in the table. i replaced that with the correct citation to where the information comes from.-(71.202.181.87 (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: grossly inaccurate labeling

message: also, dont delete this, there is high interest in it and it is based on studies. wikipedia policy says that any significant academic views should be covered. if you disagree, find some studies that dispute its import and provide citations so that people who read the articles can have access to those views also. there certainly are other studies compiled with their own rankings and methodologies. consider making an article and free map for those studies which will have different labels for their measures. for example, the economist article pointed to earlier is "quality of life index", not "subjective well being" or "satisfaction with life scale". the economist article says that its quality of life index "links the results of subjective life-satisfaction surveys to the objective determinants of quality of life across countries." so that means it is involving additional measures into its index other than sastisfaction with life surveys. there will be a different methodology behind it which is important to the results. for example, the White 2006 paper uses information from a metastudy. there are issues with metastudies because they try to collect results from other studies which are not all done in the same way, yet metastudies have to be done. White's paper then compares the results of subjective well being with other measures to find some correlations. the economist paper by contrast is not finding correlations to other factors, but trying to include those factors into a new scale.
-(71.202.181.87 (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: dont delete, just add contrary citations or make a new article about other published measures

message: I won't talk about the methodology, which is not arguable, just wrong.
But Italy only 50th.. Ah ah.. Don't talk about comparisons with other countries because of the respect I have for any of them.. But please: isn't it in one of the many wikipedia guidelines the pre-requisite of having some intellect before writing..? :D
For the dumbest ones I'll say just one thing: if I buy anything or get the salary, if I get a diploma or stay alive 95 years in my country it goes to the (reliable and encyclopedic in fact) statistics as National GDP and HDI. No one asked me if I am happy :P
P.S.
Sorry for mispellings or wrong methods, I'm not a native speaker naither a wikipedia commenter..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.23.75 (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  If I laugh because of this article, am I happier then? :) 

message: The fact that they state this is good enough for me.  It's "subjective" and not "objective", so take if for what you will.
Now, if Wikipedia guidelines states that only objective articles are allowed and they want to be strict on that, then this article should be removed.
Vl wiki (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''The article states that this is subjective!''' 

message: I take offense with the view of some members here that some countries are happier than they "should be." 
To be honest, I see nothing wrong with a study that asks people whether they're happy or not, then compiles the results. If people in Colombia consider themselves happier than people in Russia, that's their decision. 
This index is not a matter of researchers deciding which countries are the happiest, then listing their opinions. It's the product of surveys of the citizens within those countries, if I read the page right.
Sure, you might wonder why the endangered, malnourished citizens of Colombia are happier than the well-educated, protected citizens of Russia. Nevertheless, it does little good to go up to a Colombian and say, "you shouldn't be happy! Look at all these statistics on your country!" or approach a Russian and say, "Well, based on your literacy and your income, shouldn't you be happier?" 
People might not know much, but they do know whether or not they're happy. With that in mind, I don't see any problems with a study that asks citizens if they're satisfied with life, then compares the responses across countries. 
KBurchfiel (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  People know if they're happy or not. 

message: I saw the list and noticed that different countries were given different rankings EVEN THOUGH THEIR SCORES WERE IDENTICAL.  So I decided to see if this was due to some ranking in the source documents.
None... not ONE of the source documents gives this table in this manner.  For example, this table gives scores with decimals.  NONE of the sources gives scores with decimals. 
Multiple sources do give Maps, but THE MAPS IN THE SOURCES DO NOT MATCH THE MAP IN WIKIPEDIA.  The map in wikipedia is OR.
This article needs completely reworked. --Blue Tie (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No References support the list nor the map

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion|Templates for deletion]] nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Lists of countries}}]] 

message: This is an encyclopedia entry on a happiness index. This is not the place or the forum where it should be debated, whether this index is ok or not, whether it's meaningfully defined, or whether it suits each visitor's particular personal appetite. For that discussion, go study social science in a university, meet researchers on the area and publish your opinions in peer-reviewed journals. That's how you'll change this gaping unjustice. Almost added ", dumbasses" to the caption line, but that would just overly underline the point.
What is relevant for this page, for example, is: who the bloody hell has made the gddmn table and put rank no 1 and rank no 90 in the same fkn row? I mean, honestly, how is anyone supposed to edit that mess? Volunteers for wikifying it, or do I have to work my /sed/ magic again myself? --Sigmundur (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is not the place nor the channel for discussion on the happiness index itself 

message: The ranking doesn't seem to come from the source. archive.org isn't working for http://www.le.ac.uk/users/aw57/world/sample.html but   seem to be the same thing. And I see no ranks there. Yet we assign 16-25 for countries which seem to have the same SWL and are sorted solely by alphabetical order. Nil Einne (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking?