Liberal men least happy

[Exophase]

This is true! From my experience those who are religious tend to be a bit happier than those who are not. From a purely rational perspective I wish I could be religious as it seems to be good for you in a general sense, unfortunately my brain just isn't wired that way. Can't make yourself believe.

From my own personal experiences, religion gave me a fair amount of comfort/peace of mind that could have translated into increased happiness. Knowing that you can rely on some greater standard and power relieves a lot of burden and uncertainty in figuring out how you should live your life. Belief in the afterlife relives fear of death and gives you all of these wonderful things to look forward to. There's just a basic attraction in the belief that the whole universe has some kind of grand direction and purpose.

But ultimately it was nothing more than a nice delusion, and if I had a chance to stop myself from going down that path I would have. It adversely affected a lot of decisions I've made and in some ways I think in the end did leave me feeling more hopeless. Many people are indoctrinated with religion at a very young age and finding out for themselves that it doesn't really fit with reality is jarring. You see a lot of accounts of atheists who hate religion because of how they were mistreated by religious people under religious ideals, or how they see other people have been mistreated. You don't see that many accounts of people who stopped believing in it even though they felt it had a strong positive function in their life.

It's not hard to see how all of this would correlate less religion with less happiness (and as everyone knows, liberals are on average less religious than conservatives). But like it's been said, you can't force yourself to believe. Once you realize Santa Claus isn't real you can't go back, no matter how happy that belief made you.

If you arrive at the conclusion that there is no ultimate meaning to life because the universe is fundamentally purposeless, then the only rational conclusion is to maximize happiness.

You don't manufacture happiness. And just because you don't believe that intelligent beings created the world or people doesn't mean that you lose interest in humanity or the world at large.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Not surprised at all by this since liberal men are generally idiots and full of hate.

HOLE E FUCK... I've had to replace this thing about 20 times just due to you, indigestible. You're a laughable little fucktard at best.

signed,
The happy liberal.

 

[Vic]

Okay, let's look at this article from another perspective.
The only consistently reliable indicator in recent elections of how a voter in the US will vote has been the relative population density of the area surrounding their primary residence.
In other words, rural voters are more likely to vote Republican, and urban voters are more likely to vote Democratic. General opinion is that Republicans are more likely to identify conservative, and Democrats as liberals.
Extrapolate this to the article and its title could have also been "urban men least happy. " But urban males tend to have the highest levels of employment opportunity and then the authors argument would have been lost.

 

[Atreus21]

You don't manufacture happiness. And just because you don't believe that intelligent beings created the world or people doesn't mean that you lose interest in humanity or the world at large.

No, it just removes any justification for it. The only answer for "Why do you care about life?" becomes "Because I feel like caring about life."

 

[Retro Rob]

It's not hard to see how all of this would correlate less religion with less happiness (and as everyone knows, liberals are on average less religious than conservatives). But like it's been said, you can't force yourself to believe. Once you realize Santa Claus isn't real you can't go back, no matter how happy that belief made you.

Your analogy is flawed...all you have to do is wait near a Chimney on Christmas eve to disprove Santa...God, not so easily.

It ultimately comes down to belief in God being "silly", and unfortunately, just because something is "silly", that doesn't mean its false.

 

[nehalem256]

Okay, let's look at this article from another perspective.
The only consistently reliable indicator in recent elections of how a voter in the US will vote has been the relative population density of the area surrounding their primary residence.
In other words, rural voters are more likely to vote Republican, and urban voters are more likely to vote Democratic. General opinion is that Republicans are more likely to identify conservative, and Democrats as liberals.
Extrapolate this to the article and its title could have also been "urban men least happy. " But urban males tend to have the highest levels of employment opportunity and then the authors argument would have been lost.

Not true:

The unemployment rate in rural and exurban counties in December (the latest month for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has data) stayed essentially unchanged from November. Rural counties had a 7.3 percent unemployment rate. Exurban counties stood at 6.8 percent. And urban counties were at 7.4 percent.

(Remember, exurban counties are largely rural in character, but they are within metropolitan regions. Exurban people may work in cities, but they live in rural.)

All of this is better than a year ago, when rural unemployment was 8.1 percent and exurban unemployment hung in there at 7.7 percent. Urban unemployment in December 2011 was 8.3 percent.

http://www.dailyyonder.com/rural-unemployment-state-state/2013/02/04/5639

Seems like there is little difference in employment prospects for urban vs. rural.

 

[fskimospy]

Not true:

http://www.dailyyonder.com/rural-unemployment-state-state/2013/02/04/5639

Seems like there is little difference in employment prospects for urban vs. rural.

Uhmm, people are mobile and will naturally transit to job opportunity, particularly within a reasonably close geographic area. Quoting unemployment rate as the measure of total employment opportunity is not informative. Additionally, wages are generally significantly higher in urban areas even after accounting for cost of living differences.

Most of the poorest areas of the country are rural.

 

[Exophase]

No, it just removes any justification for it. The only answer for "Why do you care about life?" becomes "Because I feel like caring about life."

In the end of the day, everything is the same whether or not you say things have happened or are happening that no one can witness and have no material effect on anything that happens in life.

Humans have this predisposition towards finding higher meaning in "god did it" but that doesn't really change anything either. It just pushes out he questions and uncertainty to a place where people are comfortable leaving it. Why should you be intrinsically happier with intent and design coming from a supernatural deity but not care about intent and design within humanity? Put it another way: if it turns out your deity is itself the result of a natural process in some other universe does that invalidate everything?

Your analogy is flawed...all you have to do is wait near a Chimney on Christmas eve to disprove Santa...God, not so easily.

It ultimately comes down to belief in God being "silly", and unfortunately, just because something is "silly", that doesn't mean its false.

No, it's not flawed. What you don't understand is that the analogy isn't saying that a belief in God is as erroneous or "silly" as a belief in Santa Claus. It's saying that once you realize that something isn't true you can't just go back to believing in it because it was a nice comforting thing. Try to understand the difference.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, it's not flawed. What you don't understand is that the analogy isn't saying that a belief in God is as erroneous or "silly" as a belief in Santa Claus. It's saying that once you realize that something isn't true you can't just go back to believing in it because it was a nice comforting thing. Try to understand the difference.

Ok...and how does one "realize" that God isn't real?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I find the more I get involved in political debates, the more unhappy I get. The amount of time I waste here and in other places, when I could be using this time productively and for real benefit to myself and my family which are vastly more important, is depressing.

My opinion: Liberals are more involved in politics in general, and are thus less happy.

Politics is cynicism, filth, pettiness, and hatred. Yet it's difficult to resist.

Ask your liberal friends: What were the background qualifications of the president they elected?

Being able to say "Senator" alone would be amazing for most liberals, but sadly, that isn't enough to be an answer. Elected years, amount of experience, etc... would be more acceptable.

Let me take a guess at what your count of successful answers will be: 0

 

[fskimospy]

Ask your liberal friends: What were the background qualifications of the president they elected?

Being able to say "Senator" alone would be amazing for most liberals, but sadly, that isn't enough to be an answer. Elected years, amount of experience, etc... would be more acceptable.

Let me take a guess at what your count of successful answers will be: 0

You pretty much just proved his point about politics being all about hatred.

 

[lotus503]

Ok...and how does one "realize" that God isn't real?

by accepting the lack of any supportive evidence. However it really comes down to the definition of God, so I prefer to focus on major religions interpretation of it when considering it isn't real.

 

[Vic]

Not true:

http://www.dailyyonder.com/rural-unemployment-state-state/2013/02/04/5639

Seems like there is little difference in employment prospects for urban vs. rural.

By opportunity I meant mobility. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Retro Rob]

by accepting the lack of any supportive evidence. However it really comes down to the definition of God, so I prefer to focus on major religions interpretation of it when considering it isn't real.

What "lack of evidence"?

To say God "lacks evidence" means you've examined all the evidence ever presented during the history of man, which is impossible.

If I say, there's no evidence GM built my car, means I took time to examine all evidence ever presented supporting this notion, and had reason to reject it.

Secondly, everyone has a different standard of evidence...what convinces me may not convince you, so this "lack of evidence' t-shirt slogan is entirely subjective.

 

[Matt1970]

Conservatives live in a land of fantasy, so it would make sense that they would be happier. People who believe in magic(religion) are happier too. In other words, if you are stupid enough to be able to believe in make believe, it is easier than having to deal with the harsh realities of live.

This from the man who thinks there is no left in the US and there has never been a communist nation.

 

[kage69]

It's common for people to see their opposition as more mobilized, calculating, and organized. I'm sure conservatives see liberals as organized much the same way liberals see conservatives.

While I can appreciate that view, the problem I have with it (besides it contradicting years of 'old favorites' conservatives love to label liberals with) is that it doesn't really account for those of us in the middle who take issue with ideals and goals found on both ends of the spectrum. I've heard too many liberals lament not having the same kind of invigorated base that conservatives do, religious conservatives in particular. The Voter ID issue in particular is hard for me to reconcile wrt to liberals given the meat of the argument presented by ID supporting conservatives. That's an awful lot of protest regarding ID, voting times and locations, etc coming from people who are supposedly even more driven and organized than the the people who see getting ID as no difficult feat.

What I meant by "more involved in politics" was that I think liberals are more inclined to get involved in the war of ideas. More likely to engage in political debates. That's my opinion based on my impressions. I don't know that it's actually true.

I must commend you on your qualifier there, it made me happy.

There is an "Onward christian soldier" element to religious conservatives and their view towards politics that I can't seem to match up to a liberal analog. Non religious conservatives will often take the approach of liberals being less American, bent on diluting or corrupting what they see as pure and noble. It infuriates them, and leads to the whole 'We're taking the country back!' feeling of struggle. Both elements liken it to a war of sorts (you even framed it as a war of ideas). I've never heard or seen of anyone discussing war in terms of love and happiness. I'm not saying conservatives are automatically militant (or violent, or stupid, etc) but I am saying that with the liberal v conservative equation I see a stark difference in what is said and the way it is said. Liberals seem to focus on pluralism and inclusion, where conservatives seem to focus on individualism and exclusion. Venues for political opinion illustrate it quite well. Liberals are adept with comedy and satire for the most part, while conservatives are champions of outrage and indignation, particularly on radio. I think this is quite germane to the issue of happiness among both pundits and their audiences.

Anyway, I will agree that any of our perceptions of this will depend largely on who we are, and where we live, but having said that it still can't make me just erase the level of frothy rage among conservatives I've witnessed since 2008. Even uber liberal hair farmers didn't get that batshit insane when Cheney/Bush was in the White House.

 

[lotus503]

What "lack of evidence"?

To say God "lacks evidence" means you've examined all the evidence ever presented during the history of man, which is impossible.

If I say, there's no evidence GM built my car, means I took time to examine all evidence ever presented supporting this notion, and had reason to reject it.

Secondly, everyone has a different standard of evidence...what convinces me may not convince you, so this "lack of evidence' t-shirt slogan is entirely subjective.

I require evidence to believe in something. So far none has been provided that demonstrates the existence of God. I agree that standards of evidence vary greatly, my 4 year old believes in Santa and my 9 year old no longer does. they both require varying degrees of evidence for belief system. However there are standards in the scientific community for things to go from hypothesis to proven. I am all for people believing what they want to believe as long as it doesn't hurt other people in the process.

But if your going to challenge my notion God isn't real, get ready to show evidence to scientific standard, but we both know thats impossible.

 

[Retro Rob]

I require evidence to believe in something. So far none has been provided that demonstrates the existence of God.

This begs the question: What evidence did (or do) you hope to see, within reason? Or you can name whatever you want (like God coming down and turning you into a frog and back), which would place the onus on him to show it, not me.

 

[lotus503]

This begs the question: What evidence did (or do) you hope to see, within reason? Or you can name whatever you want (like God coming down and turning you into a frog and back), which would place the onus on him to show it, not me.

Well that's where it gets difficult because if you define God as an intelligent being that formed the basic chemical compounds of life so it woud react with its environment and evolve, id say given the vastness of the universe that could exist.

However if you define God as he is traditional viewed based on man made religious text I need a different body of proof.

In scenario A. a body or other compelling scentific evidence of intelligent creatures with the capacity to brew life.

In scenario B. well I would need things that support the textual descriptions, like the ability to telepathically hear everyone at once etc.

Its simply possible as just as likely if God exists its just an older more advanced alien species, the evidence of which could define our origins and toss it all on its head.

 

[Geosurface]

by accepting the lack of any supportive evidence. However it really comes down to the definition of God, so I prefer to focus on major religions interpretation of it when considering it isn't real.

I'm a pretty die-hard atheist and I think it's almost an absolute certainty that god is not real, and more than that, everything claimed as supernatural isn't real. No ghosts, no souls, no afterlife, no out of body experiences, no psychics, you name it. All 100% bogus.

I've felt this way for as long as I can remember, and I know that as early as second grade I was leaving out "under god" in the pledge each morning in school. Much later I found out it hadn't always been in the pledge anyway.

My certitude on the issue of the supernatural being fake has only grown with time. However... I have recently started to finally agree with those who say that belief in god and adherence to a religion is in fact beneficial for most people to hold. I think western society has suffered from moving away from Christianity.

I used to believe that the whole world would be better off if everyone was an atheist, but I realize now that humanity in its current form simply isn't ready for that. We need to genetically engineer ourselves to have a much higher average IQ and lower aggression, etc. first.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I asked you to post that thread instead of talking about it. If you keep posting that 2 + 2 = 5 you will keep getting the reply that 2 + 2 = 4. Predicting that means nothing. I can predict, for example, that you will tell me I should listen to my doctor when I post. I just ask you to post where you got that notion. Don't call me a liar if you can't post the facts to support your claim.

Here's the thread. So either you were telling the truth or being untruthful, so which is it?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=35810265&postcount=96

That's some very good news. Now you also have a friend that is a paranoid schizophrenic, has abandoned his doctor and won't take his drugs you can add to your acceptable list or are you going to let your bigotry get in your way?

The progress you make in one area does not absolve you of lack in other areas nor tarnish any progress you've made.

 

[lotus503]

I'm a pretty die-hard atheist and I think it's almost an absolute certainty that god is not real, and more than that, everything claimed as supernatural isn't real. No ghosts, no souls, no afterlife, no out of body experiences, no psychics, you name it. All 100% bogus.

I've felt this way for as long as I can remember, and I know that as early as second grade I was leaving out "under god" in the pledge each morning in school. Much later I found out it hadn't always been in the pledge anyway.

My certitude on the issue of the supernatural being fake has only grown with time. However... I have recently started to finally agree with those who say that belief in god and adherence to a religion is in fact beneficial for most people to hold. I think western society has suffered from moving away from Christianity.

I used to believe that the whole world would be better off if everyone was an atheist, but I realize now that humanity in its current form simply isn't ready for that. We need to genetically engineer ourselves to have a much higher average IQ and lower aggression, etc. first.

All very good points, and I agree on nearly all counts, however I am not atheist rather agnostic, because I think in order to state God doesn't exist one has to define god. I agree God doesn't exist in the sense of major religions. But what if you defined god as anything more intelligent than us that seeded life, then it becomes more probable in my opinion.

I spent the better part of the past 10 years considering religion to be damaging and not a net positive in society and to an extent that's true, however we do not know what society would be like absent it, so net gain or loss is hard to determine because we don't have comparative data.

I do think society is evolving beyond god I think that's good too long term because then we are all accountable.

What is really interesting is belief in general, not even in the context of god, but rather how belief any belief at all impacts us all to a great deal.

 

[Geosurface]

what if you defined god as anything more intelligent than us that seeded life, then it becomes more probable in my opinion.

It certainly does, and it becomes even more probable than that if I define "god" as my cat, who I know for sure exists

I personally think that the commonly understood meaning of god should be adhered to when discussing whether it exists, and that would be a supernatural, eternal, all powerful being who created everything or at least set everything in motion. There are other definitions, such as what the Greeks considered gods who were obviously beings of much less power... but any modern person discussing it means what I said above, I think.

I spent the better part of the past 10 years considering religion to be damaging and not a net positive in society and to an extent that's true, however we do not know what society would be like absent it, so net gain or loss is hard to determine because we don't have comparative data.

I think it depends entirely on the religion in question. I consider Islam to be incredibly damaging to society in its current form. If it were to go through a huge watering down and reformation like Christianity and Judaism have, it could be entirely non-threatening or even positive for society. On the other extreme, Wicca is currently a total joke and just an amusing little dalliance people can indulge in to feel unique or whatever. However, if it gained enough power and followers... it could potentially be an enormous threat to civilization. It's all about the particulars and the context.

I think that Christianity has become a mostly positive force, though I certainly acknowledge the many negative impacts it still has on certain things (gay rights, science, abortion rights, education, immigration) but perhaps the paradox is that a religion only becomes mostly beneficial and unobjectionable right when it's about to die.

 

[brandonb]

I'd just like to say I'm neither Democrat or Republican, but I lean Conservative.

That said, surveys/studies like this are completely worthless. Most everything has a bias to it. I know happy liberals. I know unhappy liberals. Same with conservatives. I don't think either really out number the other.

In my personal life this is what I see:

1) Most people who work don't choose to bitch because they are too busy working. Liberal and Conservative. They choose not to add fuel to the fire or work themselves up over things they cannot change. Most people in the position realize nothing is actually going to change, and we'll continue to work. "They" are going to take our money regardless, "They" are going to pass whatever laws they choose. No matter which hat we wear. They instead choose to just live life and make the best of it in the current moment while they can.

2) Those who don't work (and choose not to) have more time to bitch about the other side and point fingers. They like being the victim. There is some reason, or someone is out to get them. They yell about some cause, or some agenda. "Don't beat puppies" "Hug every kitty" On and on it goes, from both sides. Pushing their agenda because their life has no purpose otherwise. Get a job, I say.

3) Surprise surprise. Both have a similar % of those working, and unemployed. There are good people on both sides, and bad people on both sides. It's just that their jersey and pom-poms are different colors.

Their agenda should really change focus and look at those really in charge... "Them". Because it's impossible to hug every kitty. You can't right every wrong. There is just more wrong around the corner. Wrong will be invented just to keep us busy.

Just my observations and thoughts.

 

[brandonb]

Geo,

I think the problem you are describing is that in life, people need a leader. Too many are following the directions of others. Maybe it's part of our evolution, our animal instincts to follow the pack.

You have girls following Miley Cyrus. You have boys following some sports athlete. You have liberals following some cause. You have conservatives following some God. You have others following the government. You have others following a purpose, or an ideology and so on. Any one of those can be damaging, any of them can be positive. Depends on the purpose, but when it comes down to it. We are following something.

Those who want power, use those for their own benefit and greed. That's the evil of this world. Liberals and conservatives are an equal victim here. Those who want power know that at some point, their goals become self destructive or people catch on to it and they morph into another thing entirely. That will never end.