I think the author is confusing "happy" with "smug".

phreddy wrote:

A whole .27 points happier?  So, if the average person scores 50 on the happiness scale, the vegie eater scores 50.27.  Shocking!  More bullshit science.

Sigh. More bullshit comments from people who don't, won't, or can't read or understand science. If you had bothered to use your eyes (sorry Phreddy, picking on you but it's definitely not exclusive to you), you would have saved yourself the embarrasment of exposing yourself as a science-thicky.

From the paper:

It might be thought that the coefficient of 0.2743 is small.  However, its size is best seen in perspective of the whole regression equation.  From the coefficients of column 3 of Table 1,
we  can observe that this corresponds to a  larger life-satisfaction  increment than being a
non-smoker (0.1945), is only a little less than that from being married (0.3611),  and in
absolute size is more than half the  coefficient of having a longstanding illness (-0.4368).   
Being unemployed, which is known from well-being research to have routinely one of the
largest effects in happiness equations, is associated with approximately -0.9 points.

Scientists are rarely stupid people, and if we're going to post the results of their research we need to address them with at least half-an-ounce of rigor and respect - at least initiallly - or we look like fucking idiots with anti-intellectual axes to grind.

phreddy wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Scientists are rarely stupid people, and if we're going to post the results of their research we need to address them with at least half-an-ounce of rigor and respect - at least initiallly - or we look like fucking idiots with anti-intellectual axes to grind.

Scientists are not stupid people.  They know how to use statistical analyses to garner more grants.  I am a strong believer in the scientific method, but touting minimal deviations and claiming meaningful results is bullshit. The results purport to show that an increase of .27 points over the mean of 7.6 on a scale of 1-10 is meaningful.  The report also shows that average eaters increase happiness by .19 points simply by not smoking, .36 by being married, and .53 by being sexually active.  So fucking beats veggies by double.  However, being unemployed drops you to a minus 2.3, or about 8 times more unhappy.  Now that seems significant.

Read the last paragraph and follow the money.

Our findings can be at best only suggestive of any causal relationship. Nevertheless, the general avenue explored here -- that of thinking harder about the types of foods consumed by human beings -- appears to be a potentially valuable one for social scientists and perhaps also eventually for governments concerned with the ultimate happiness of their citizens. These issues seem to merit future inquiry.

On your advice all manner of research would be stopped to weed out projects that don't turn out data that you find valuable. Thank Yottle you have nothing to do with anything. You're the sort of asshole who would have cheered when Galileo was placed under arrest and hauled before the Inquisition. Frankly, anything you say about science is highly suspect, not just because you don't understand simple concepts such as scale (your initial comment in this thread was monstrously stupid), but because all you do is grind your single-edged axe, all fucking day long. It's predictable, monotonous, and lacking in perspicacity. If you can't think a little deeper than that you should give up all pretense of intelligence and become a Christian.

Edited to correct for some spooge-sticky keys!

Last edited by WilberCuntLicker (2012-10-23 19:58:34)

Lets just cut to the chase shall we?  Fresh fruits and vegetables ain't cheap!  If you can afford to cruise your local farmers' market or Whole Foods store to buy seven or eight servings worth of organic fresh fruits and vegetables per day, you're probably happier with your life than the person who can only afford crap that's full of fat, starch, and salt, and that has a better than even chance of coming out of a can, extruded polystyrene foam carton, or plastic bag.

Last edited by fnord (2012-10-23 22:08:23)

fnord wrote:

Lets just cut to the chase shall we?  Fresh fruits and vegetables ain't cheap!  If you can afford to cruise your local farmers' market or Whole Foods store to buy seven or eight servings worth of organic fresh fruits and vegetables per day, you're probably happier with your life than the person who can only afford crap that's full of fat, starch, and salt, and that has a better than even chance of coming out of a can, extruded polystyrene foam carton, or plastic bag.

The average apple is 150 grams and cost about 35 cents down at Ralphs/Kroger ($0.99 p/lb. on any given day for Red Delicious apples) add a banana or a pear and you've only spent a buck and are half way to the 7 serving/560 gram mark.  If you are eating 3 meals and one snack per day it's neither expensive nor difficult to eat 560 grams of fruit and veggies each day.

I'd ask Taint to lay out a meaty, tasty menu for you that hits these goals but anyone of us here can easily do it ourselves if we avoid McDonalds.  Remember Tomato's, Onions and mushrooms are considered veggies under this model.

I've not shopped the inside aisles of a grocery in about 15 years, do they still sell food in there?

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Vegetables, like meat, are what you make of them.

Very good that was in the early '80s (amendation: excellent).

That menu gave me nightmares. Too many fucking verbs fighting fungible fonts. I get my carrot scraped now & then but if my vegetables shave, I don't want to know.

fnord wrote:

I've discovered that when confronted with a menu like this, the food will at best be barely passable, the quantity inadequate, and the bill astronomical!

Don't forget that the service will be snooty and the hours will be late too.

And you could all be right. But back when it opened it served an incredibly good fixed meal, which consisted of...(memfail...memfail...) many many courses of exquisitely prepared and gracefully presented dishes - each one a mouthful or two of vegetable succulence, each one followed by a tiny loaf of many types of really fucking good bread. It was relatively expensive, but I was young and poor. Now that I'm old and indifferent, I recognize it as very good value - a meal remembered vividly, for the food, not the food fight, 40 years gone.