: : : Nice to see such a thoughtful post from you for once.
: : Well, though wrapped in condescending arrogence, thats pleasant of you...
: Who's being arrogant?
You states 'nice to see such a thoughtful post from you' - thats the pleasant part. "for once." may just be your opinion - suggesting that you in particular thought the others posts were thoughtless. Maybe I am reading tone into your words, accurately I imagine.
: Funny---you just said in this post: 'The best way to get a perception is to compare a similar study from, say the 50's, with one now and see how people rate their quality of of life.'
Precisely - how to overcome the changing 'value' of the work 'happy'
: Would you have 'happiness' atomized into vaious commodities?---i.e. does an iMac in 1998 makes me happier than a Quad stereo 'system' did in 1969?
Thats the question.
: That would be silly.
Can you explain why it must be silly? I'm not saying that it isnt silly - but can you explain why, given a theoretical constant rate of objective happiness (ie not the subjective valuation offered in surveys), a person 100 years ago claiming to be happy is as happy, mre or less happy, than a person claiming the same now?
Perhaps the silliness is, after all, in comparing surveys. hmmm...