• Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact

  • Hedonic Model

    July 31st, 2017
    happiness, preferences  [html]
    Here's a rough model of happiness. I'm still confused about what happiness is, why it's a thing, and how to compare it between people, but here's where I am now:

    We have a sense of how good things could be. We're probably born with some genetically informed priors, but mostly we develop this sense based on experience. When a good thing happens to us our sense of what's possible goes up, as when we observe good things happening to others. If you think of something as inaccessible to you, it doesn't affect your sense of how good things could be. Happiness is having how things are going be closer to how you think things could be going.

    Some things this model predicts:

    • The absolute level of how good things are doesn't matter very much. A world where the cocoa tree hadn't happened to evolve would be similarly happy to the current world.

    • Switching from something worse to something better makes you happier, though you mostly adapt and end up not that much happier than before. Inventing something new that's as good as chocolate would be positive for current people.

    • Switching from something better to something worse makes you less happy, and you mostly don't adapt and end up a bunch less happy than before. Cocoa tree extinction would be very bad for current people.

    • Inequality is bad. A world where a rich people eat chocolate is worse than one where chocolate is evenly distributed or isn't a thing.

    • Social mobility is bad. People moving down are more sad than people moving up are happy. The idea that you could move up makes the good things rich people have feel more accessible than if class/caste boundaries are immutable, and so makes inequality more painful.

    • Raising standards smoothly gives the most happiness. Start as a child in material poverty, though with good nutrition, good education, and everything else you really need. Then add more and more comforts as you get older. Don't try to equalize consumption over your lifetime.

    (This has some resemblance to how positional goods work, but isn't the same. For example, if the cocoa tree goes extinct only a small fraction of people have their relative positions change, but lots of people are worse off.)

    I'm not sure how much I buy this model, though I've been thinking along these lines for a while. Either way, I definitely don't currently act as if I believe its consequences in their entirety. For example, I like to give my kids things they will enjoy, and this isn't a factor I've been taking into account in thinking about global poverty charities.

    (Thanks to David Chudzicki for conversations inspiring this post.)

    Comment via: google plus, facebook

    Recent posts on blogs I like:

    Randal O’Toole Gets High-Speed Rail Wrong

    Now that there’s decent chance of US investment in rail, Randal O’Toole is resurrecting his takes from the early Obama era, warning that high-speed rail is a multi-trillion dollar money sink. It’s not a good analysis, and in particular it gets the reality…

    via Pedestrian Observations May 12, 2021

    Collections: Teaching Paradox, Europa Universalis IV, Part II: Red Queens

    This is the second part in a series (I) that examines the historical assumptions behind Paradox Interactive’s grand strategy computer game set in the early modern period, Europa Universalis IV (EU4). Last time, we took a look at how EU4 was a game fundame…

    via A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry May 7, 2021

    Books and websites on babies

    Several people I know are expecting a first baby soon, and I wrote up notes for one of them. Might as well share here too: Medical:Scott Alexander’s Biodeterminist’s Guide to Parenting is an interesting read, and some parts are actionable.  If you live in…

    via The whole sky April 14, 2021

    more     (via openring)


  • Posts
  • RSS
  • ◂◂RSS
  • Contact