The happiest state is......


srmaher
 Share

Recommended Posts

The financial website Wallethub conducted a study to find out which of the 50 states were the most happy, and unhappy. I wasn’t surprised when I read that Utah was at the top of the list. After all, Utah is always ranked number one in both charitable contributions and volunteer hours which are behaviors that lead to happiness.

 

The study didn’t just focus on the number of volunteer hours and charitable contributions. It looked at things such as; the percentage of people overweight or obese, the percentage of the population participating in sports, the average number of hours worked each week, the volunteerism rate, divorce rate, the prevalence of depression, and the quality of sleep.

 

Like any study dealing with subjective topics, such as happiness, should be taken with a grain of salt. But one thing is for sure, true happiness comes when we forget ourselves and look for ways to bless the lives of others. As a side note; maybe the members of the church could learn a thing or two from these “Utah Mormons.”

 

Here is the link to Wallethub if you want to learn more.

http://wallethub.com/edu/most-least-happy-states-in-america/6959/

Happy-States.jpeg

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utah also is one of the leaders in the nation in anti-depressant use, is a leader in suicide rates (especially among teenage males), and is purported to have one of the highest paid pornography subscription rates in the country.  

 

Yet, when people cite these observations as evidence of problems in Mormonism, most in the Church are quick to point out that Utah isn't made up entirely of Mormons.   So I wouldn't be so quick to give credit to Mormonism for happiness unless you're also going to give credit to Mormonism for anti-depressant use, suicide, and pornography consumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. Depression, as you well know, is heavily associated with environmental and genetic factors. The authors of the 2009 porn study apparently wouldn't reveal their data sources, and a later study placed Utah about 45th (and Idaho, 25% Mormon, was dead last in both studies).. And frankly--while Utah's suicide rate is the lowest in the mountain west--Mormonism does ask a lot of its young men; and I'll own that if it means the LDS feminists will quit yammering on and on about "patriarchal privilege".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meh. Depression, as you well know, is heavily associated with environmental and genetic factors. The authors of the 2009 porn study apparently wouldn't reveal their data sources, and a later study placed Utah about 45th (and Idaho, 25% Mormon, was dead last in both studies).. And frankly--while Utah's suicide rate is the lowest in the mountain west--Mormonism does ask a lot of its young men; and I'll own that if it means the LDS feminists will quit yammering on and on about "patriarchal privilege".

The problem with the Virtuous Society analysis (and you'll see I commented on that page you link to), is that it is measuring an entirely different thing.  Essentially, it is ranking states on page views (important distinction: page views are not the same as visits) to a popular pornography site per capita.  That's very different than the number of paid subscriptions per 1,000 broadband subscribers.

 

What's more, the Virtuous Society analysis makes the case based on page views per capita, but doesn't make an adjustment for the demographic makeup of the states as far as age goes.  Realistically, young children aren't going to be visiting adult sites very often, and so states with a larger proportion of children under a certain age will get biased down in the rankings.  

 

I actually downloaded the data and started to compile another analysis based on Virtuous Society's work.  I never got around to finishing it, but some of the findings I have put together were that there is a negative correlation between the percent of married men and the pageviews per capita.  This means that the more married men in a state, the lower their page views.  Likewise, as the age to marriage in a state increased, the page views increased*.  What isn't clear--and can't be evaluated, because the adult site in question hasnt' released these data--is whether this is a product of married men not consuming pornography, or married men having reduced opportunity to view pornography.  We can't answer that without knowing the number of unique IP addresses that visit the site in each state and comparing that to the number of broadband subscribers.

 

In the end, both the paid subscription statistic and the Virtuous Society statistic can both be right, because they measure different things.  But they both do a lousy job of establishing the underlying cause of the findings.  Which gets back to my point: don't claim that Mormonism makes people happier based on a study like this if you aren't also willing to claim that Mormonism makes people depressed, suicidal, and pornography consumers.

 

EDIT: I originally stated "as the age to marriage in a state increased, the page views decreased."  This is incorrect: the last word should be 'increased' and is corrected in the text.

Edited by MarginOfError
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also add that the happiness study is based entirely on aggregate data.  The basic logic is, "research has shown that some economic predictors correlate with happiness.  We ranked states on the basis of their aggregate economic measures, and based on those aggregates, we would expect people in these states to be happiest."  

 

There isn't one scrap of data in there that is tied to a real person.  

 

So again, are we excited about this story because it reinforces our preferred world view, or are we excited about this story because it defines a clearly and scientifically sound truth?  (in case you couldn't tell, I find nothing scientifically sound about it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utah also is one of the leaders in the nation in anti-depressant use, is a leader in suicide rates (especially among teenage males), and is purported to have one of the highest paid pornography subscription rates in the country.  

 

Yet, when people cite these observations as evidence of problems in Mormonism, most in the Church are quick to point out that Utah isn't made up entirely of Mormons.   So I wouldn't be so quick to give credit to Mormonism for happiness unless you're also going to give credit to Mormonism for anti-depressant use, suicide, and pornography consumption.

 

MOE, i recall in a previous forum you accused me of not having "empathy," unlike yourself. I bring it up because I am truly supprised that such a empathic person would focus entirely on the faults of others, i.e., Utah Mormons. 

 

As to the claim that Utah has the highest percentage of people who look at pornography is bogus. I am from New England and believe me, there is no way on this green earth that people in Utah look at Porn more than other states. You know how i know? its called common sense, like Mark Twain said, "common sense is very uncommon." By they way, you can't crap on one study that you disagree with and yet hold up another that "fits your preconceived" notion. As you can see in the second paragraph of my post, that I clearly state that any study on happiness should be taken with a grain of salt. 

Edited by srmaher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with the Virtuous Society analysis (and you'll see I commented on that page you link to), is that it is measuring an entirely different thing. 

 

OK; but then doesn't that make it problematic to trot out the 2009 study as if it's the defining scientific evidence on the incidence of Utah/Mormon porn use?

 

I hope you finish that analysis at some point and post it on your blog.  Words like "regression" and "linear" tend to give me a headache, and you have a knack for making things readable.

 

As for "happiness"--I agree that the indicia don't necessarily lead to happiness and that correlation isn't causation.  On the other hand, it seems like a heck of a thing to say that the prevalence within a population of a certain religion that has a "health code", emphasizes work so much that some accuse it of preaching a "prosperity gospel", and is described as "cult-like" for the way it subsumes its adherents' social lives; has absolutely nothing to do with that same population's abnormally high levels of physical/emotional well-being, work ethic, and community participation. 

 

It seems to me that where a certain behavior is rationally related to the teachings of a particular group, and that group dominates a population, than you can make a prima facie case (obviously, rebuttable by further evidence or argument) that an abnormally high incidence of that behavior--whether good or bad--is directly attributable to the presence of that religion's adherents.   So, with those reservations, I actually agree with your 7:24 post.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MOE, i recall in a previous forum you accused me of not having "empathy," unlike yourself. I bring it up because I am truly supprised that such a empathic person would focus entirely on the faults of others, i.e., Utah Mormons. 

So... you missed my point.

 

 

 

As to the claim that Utah has the highest percentage of people who look at pornography is bogus. I am from New England and believe me, there is no way on this green earth that people in Utah look at Porn more than other states. You know how i know? its called common sense, like Mark Twain said, "common sense is very uncommon." 

Common sense would also suggest that smoking is bad for your health.  Yet smoking is associated with reduction in symptoms in a number of disease--particularly diseases of the bowel.  All I'm saying is that common sense has a long history of leading us to believe things that aren't true on closer inspection.

 

 

 

By they way, you can't crap on one study that you disagree with and yet hold up another that "fits your preconceived" notion. 

Hey, look at that!  You found my point!

 

 

 

As you can see in the second paragraph of my post, that I clearly state that any study on happiness should be taken with a grain of salt. 

 

you said, and I quote

 

 

Like any study dealing with subjective topics, such as happiness, should be taken with a grain of salt. But one thing is for sure, true happiness comes when we forget ourselves and look for ways to bless the lives of others. As a side note; maybe the members of the church could learn a thing or two from these “Utah Mormons.”

 

So am I supposed to be taking that one sure thing with a grain of salt?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... you missed my point.

 

Common sense would also suggest that smoking is bad for your health.  Yet smoking is associated with reduction in symptoms in a number of disease--particularly diseases of the bowel.  All I'm saying is that common sense has a long history of leading us to believe things that aren't true on closer inspection.

 

Hey, look at that!  You found my point!

 

 

you said, and I quote

 

So am I supposed to be taking that one sure thing with a grain of salt?  

 

I take all studies with a grain of salt. I have learned that "studies" either confirm common sense or they are not true. I acknowledged up front that this study should be taken with a grain of salt, but the ones you referred to came with no such disclaimer. I agree with you that studies are very subjective, it would be nice if you applied that standard to yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK; but then doesn't that make it problematic to trot out the 2009 study as if it's the defining scientific evidence on the incidence of Utah/Mormon porn use?

Well, I would trot out the 2009 study as scientific evidence on the prevalence of Utah paid pornography consumption.  And I would trot out the VS study as scientific on the frequency of page views to a certain cite coming from Utah.  But I would stop short of assigning any of that activity to mormons or non-mormons.  The studies simply aren't designed or adequate to make such conclusions.

 

 

I hope you finish that analysis at some point and post it on your blog.  Words like "regression" and "linear" tend to give me a headache, and you have a knack for making things readable.

 

 

I may get to it some day.

 

As for "happiness"--I agree that the indicia don't necessarily lead to happiness and that correlation isn't causation.  On the other hand, it seems like a heck of a thing to say that the prevalence within a population of a certain religion that has a "health code", emphasizes work so much that some accuse it of preaching a "prosperity gospel", and is described as "cult-like" for the way it subsumes its adherents' social lives; has absolutely nothing to do with that same population's abnormally high levels of physical/emotional well-being, work ethic, and community participation. 

 

It seems to me that where a certain behavior is rationally related to the teachings of a particular group, and that group dominates a population, than you can make a prima facie case (obviously, rebuttable by further evidence or argument) that an abnormally high incidence of that behavior--whether good or bad--is directly attributable to the presence of that religion's adherents.   So, with those reservations, I actually agree with your 7:24 post.

 

 

I can't state much about the happiness study, but if we go back to the 2009 pornography study, you notice that Utah is #1 and Alaska is #2.  5.47/thousand vs 5.03/thousand.  Realistically speaking, that's a negligible difference.  So we have two states with vastly different religious demographics, which leads me to be incredibly suspicious about any role that Mormonism might play in these things.  

 

The happiness study, however, doesn't display any of the actual indices, only the ranks.  Utah may be ranked number one, but how are ahead of Minnesota is it, and is that really a substantial difference?  My experience in most of these rankings is that #1-5 are usually very similar, #1-10 aren't all that different, and then #11-30 form a bit of a group and #31-50 form a bit of a group (with some wiggle room here and there).  Assuming that this were to hold true in the happiness rankings, what do Utah, Minnesota, North Dakota, Colorado, and Nebraska have in common?  

 

That isn't to say that the things you mention aren't contributing factors.  But I might suggest they are weaker contributors than things like poverty rates, access to healthcare, weather and climate, and economic diversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take all studies with a grain of salt. I have learned that "studies" either confirm common sense or they are not true. 

 

This is honestly one of the most terrifying sentences I've ever read.

 

 

 

I acknowledged up front that this study should be taken with a grain of salt, but the ones you referred to came with no such disclaimer. I agree with you that studies are very subjective, it would be nice if you applied that standard to yourself. 

 

Am I the only one that sees the contradiction in "taking a study with a grain of salt" and then in the next sentence-literally- making a sure statement?

 

But let me make this perfectly clear to you: 

 

If you are going to use the Wallethub study to imply that "maybe the members of the church could learn a thing or two from these 'Utah Mormons.'" (presumably, leading to happier living), then by the same logic, you must accept that the implication that learning a thing or two about Utah Mormons will lead to higher anti-depressant use, higher suicide, and higher pornography consumption (though with fewer page views per visit).  

 

I don't personally agree with any of those things.  But if you are going to accept any one of those implications, then all of the others follow by the same logic.  It's entirely up to you whether you want to apply that logic or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is honestly one of the most terrifying sentences I've ever read.

 

 

Am I the only one that sees the contradiction in "taking a study with a grain of salt" and then in the next sentence-literally- making a sure statement?

 

But let me make this perfectly clear to you: 

 

If you are going to use the Wallethub study to imply that "maybe the members of the church could learn a thing or two from these 'Utah Mormons.'" (presumably, leading to happier living), then by the same logic, you must accept that the implication that learning a thing or two about Utah Mormons will lead to higher anti-depressant use, higher suicide, and higher pornography consumption (though with fewer page views per visit).  

 

I don't personally agree with any of those things.  But if you are going to accept any one of those implications, then all of the others follow by the same logic.  It's entirely up to you whether you want to apply that logic or not.

 

Really, that most terrifying thing you have read, perhaps I should have included a trigger warning. As to making a sure statement, what was the sure statement that I made? By the way, my reference to "Utah Mormons" was tongue and check because members of the church out side of Utah, for what ever reason bash Utah Mormons. Being from the Boston area I have only had great experiences with "Utah Mormons." just FYI, The reference was meant to be in good fun. 

 

Perhaps we could clear this up. Did I, or did I not say this study should be taken with a grain of salt? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is honestly one of the most terrifying sentences I've ever read.

 

 

Am I the only one that sees the contradiction in "taking a study with a grain of salt" and then in the next sentence-literally- making a sure statement?

 

But let me make this perfectly clear to you: 

 

If you are going to use the Wallethub study to imply that "maybe the members of the church could learn a thing or two from these 'Utah Mormons.'" (presumably, leading to happier living), then by the same logic, you must accept that the implication that learning a thing or two about Utah Mormons will lead to higher anti-depressant use, higher suicide, and higher pornography consumption (though with fewer page views per visit).  

 

I don't personally agree with any of those things.  But if you are going to accept any one of those implications, then all of the others follow by the same logic.  It's entirely up to you whether you want to apply that logic or not.

 

Is this the "Sure statement" that I made. "But one thing is for sure, true happiness comes when we forget ourselves and look for ways to bless the lives of others." Do you disagree that serving others leads to happiness? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the Wallethub article and was shocked by their claim that Washington DC is one of the safest places in the country. I went to the University of Maryland and lived for a while in northern Virginia, and I knew a lot of people who thought it would be cool to live in DC. As soon as they were mugged or their car was stolen, back to the suburbs they came. I even had one friend whose apartment in DC was on the ground floor and had windows that opened onto the sidewalk. He routinely heard muggings outside his bedroom window late at night, and he even kept a tally (marks on his closet door or something) of muggings to impress his friends.

Who knows, maybe DC has become safer, but when I was there it had one of the highest rates of violent crime in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share