Last night after watching Friday Night Lights (which is as fantastic as ever) we watched 20/20. They were talking about happiness and supposedly happiness is 50% genetic, 10% situational, and 40% attitude. They compared 2 twin sisters who both had "extreme makeovers" a couple of years ago and compared their levels of happiness. One sister had a husband and 3 kids and her own business. The other was a single mother with one daughter, no boyfriend, fiance, etc. and worked as a beautician. Their hypothesis was that because the twins have the same genetics and both looked the same (situational) that their happiness level must be because of their attitudes. The first sister with the husband, kids, etc. was happier than the single mom. The show made it out to be that the unhappier sister just needed to shape up her attitude and be happy because there was nothing different between her and her sister.
What the?!
I think it is a bunch of crap. I am not at all saying that women need a man to be happy-- but isn't possible that the happier sister has a little more sand in her happy bucket since she has the emotional support of a husband? And maybe less stress since she isn't solely responsible for the care of her children? I know that I have been a lot happier in general since Jeff and I have been married. I am not tempted to drive off cliffs nearly as often as I was before so I have a very difficult time believing that the "situational" only counts for 10% of ones happiness. And I bet it helped the unhappier sister a whole bunch to be told it was her own fault she wasn't as happy as her twin.
Note to self: Denmark is the happiest country in the world. I think that if I could smoke weed and drink at a young age legally without the guilt I would probably be pretty happy too.
11 years ago
Posts
2 comments:
Yeah, that's stupid. Among other things, what is being "happy," and does this supposed happiness equation work the same in all cultures?
So we find out the single mom is less happy and needs to adjust her attitude. This can't have anything to do with single moms having less money, or facing difficulties dating and such, or worrying that they don't measure up to our ideals of mothering and so trying to be two parents instead of just one.
And, um, why would a makeover in and of itself change your level of happiness long-term? If you have a crappy job, you still have a crappy job; if you could barely make rent, that's still the same. And in fact, I'd think you might get MORE depressed if, after your big make-over that's supposed to change your life, somehow it doesn't happen--you still have the exact same life as before, just a new haircut.
I wonder if this equation would apply for abused women--"Yes, 10% of your unhappiness is caused by your husband beating you, but 40% of it is you just needing to be a little more perky!"
This is just stupid. You cannot reduce "happiness," which is an extremely broad concept, to a series of components.
I hate this kind of "science." That is not real science, it is pseudo-science. And people try to say sociology isn't scientific.
But OMG "Friday Night Lights" is good again! Once they got rid of the stupid "I killed a rapist" storyline, it has totally been back to its normal fantastic level. Plus, they've provided me with lots of opportunities to lust after Tim Riggins.
yes. yes they did.
Post a Comment