Discover more from Overcoming Bias
At Freakonomics, Arthur Brooks on why conservatives seem happier:
In my last post I showed the large happiness differences between religious Americans and secularists, and argued that this is a big part of the reason conservatives are so much happier than liberals. But I also noted that religion and other lifestyle distinctions still only explain about half the gap. …
In my book I argue that conservatives are more optimistic about the future than liberals are, and believe in each individual’s ability to get ahead on the basis of achievement. Liberals are more likely to see themselves and others as victims of circumstance and oppression, and doubt whether individuals can climb without governmental help.
I wonder:
Would you or I be happier if we let ourselves think more conservatively, such as by attending church more and believing we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps?
Would society be happier if we encouraged more conservative thoughts?
If so, who wants such outcomes? (Or, are they good outcomes?)
Me, I want to believe whatever is true even if that makes me unhappy. And with that attitude, I doubt attending church would make me happier.
Added 13May: Tyler suggests "Robin could play up the relatively conservative thoughts he already believes in." But playing up particular beliefs will give them more weight in my mind, and move me more to similar beliefs.
Happy Conservatives
Conservatives are happy because they are skeptical that mankind can be perfected, and therefore don't seek utopia. In fact, religious conservatives place ultimate happiness beyond the bounds of human life. Which is to say they find fulfillment through duty. It is through duty that one sacrifices.
It seems to me that the liberal seeks an ever asymptotic approach to ultimate truth, which they know at some point might come to a clearer understanding. And it is that hope to know the ultimate truth that will cause them to overturn any established order, and so they question any duty not on the same path. The assumption of course is that the truth will liberate one from suffering. A dangerous assumption.
One who seeks an ultimate truth in the world must inevitably re-order the world to accomodate that truth, and defines suffering as the distance from the possibility of perfection. They cannot accept that those without possession of the truth and the means to approach it are not self-deluded.
But how can anyone who lived without knowing what we know possibly have been happy? I think there is a conceit that life of the mind delivers happiness divorced from the act of discovery. I think people misjudge the size of the soul and of the mind and presume that one can satisfy one or the other by living completely in them. But the mind and the soul are hungry and become jaded and self-serving. Happiness is found in balance. Balance requires discipline. To live entirely in the mind, or the soul, or the body are conceits.
I concur with Kyle. Correlation is not necessarily causation.
More so, if we assume causation, is this still putting the cart before the horse? Are people conservative because they are happy, or liberal because they are unhappy? Would deliberately changing political views have no impact were it the symptom and not the disease?
This article provides interesting ammunition for future research, but I see no valid and well-supported conclusions.