-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
world-happiness-report.html
87 lines (72 loc) · 7.15 KB
/
world-happiness-report.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title>World Happiness Report: EU Case Study</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="world-happiness-report.css">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://public.tableau.com/javascripts/api/tableau-2.min.js"></script>
</head>
<body>
<header>
<h1>World Happiness Report</h1>
<p class="subtitle">EU Case Study: The Influence of Subjective Measures</p>
</header>
<div class="content-wrapper">
<section id="content">
<p>
From the hierarchical categorizations of Ronald Fisher to the enduring focus on IQ, statistical tools have shaped our understanding of human value for over a century. These methods—while often presented as objective—are deeply rooted in the cultural and philosophical assumptions of their creators. IQ, for instance, became a cornerstone of eugenics, its subjective weightings legitimizing hierarchies that divided humanity. Today, we see a subtler but equally influential application of these tools in the World Happiness Report. While its focus on well-being may seem removed from the contentious legacy of IQ, it too relies on subjective decisions about what constitutes happiness—decisions that carry profound implications.
</p>
<p>
The World Happiness Report assigns significant weight to variables like social support (45.96%) and freedom to make life choices (24.22%), which together account for over 70% of a nation’s happiness score. Social support is measured by a single survey question: “If you were in trouble, do you have relatives or friends you can count on to help you whenever you need them?” In contrast, GDP per capita accounts for only 6.53%, and life expectancy at birth a mere 0.49%. This weighting reflects a philosophical assertion: that material wealth and longevity are secondary to emotional and social factors. While this may resonate with those living in high-GDP nations where material needs are met, it raises questions about whether such assumptions hold universally. One wonders how someone in a low-GDP country might respond to being told that GDP is a minor contributor to happiness, while social support—defined by a single question—takes precedence. For many, the opportunity for greater economic security might feel more tangible than the promise of relatives or friends in times of trouble.
</p>
<p>
Below, an interactive visualization shows how these variables contribute to happiness rankings within the European Union. On the left, the relative weights assigned to each variable are displayed; on the right, the resulting rankings for EU countries emerge. Consider how these choices influence the narrative. Does the emphasis on social support reflect your perception of happiness in these nations? Or does it obscure alternative understandings of well-being?
</p>
<div id="tableauViz1"></div>
<p>
To contrast the subjectivity of happiness rankings, we can examine suicide rates—an ostensibly objective variable. Countries like Finland, which consistently ranks as one of the happiest nations, report some of the highest suicide rates in the EU at 15.3 per 100,000 people, compared to the European average of 11. Meanwhile, Mediterranean countries like Cyprus and Greece, often lower in happiness rankings, report some of the lowest suicide rates. Could environmental factors, such as greater exposure to sunlight, offer a better explanation for happiness than survey-based metrics? These discrepancies challenge the validity of the report’s methodology, highlighting its limitations in capturing the full complexity of human well-being.
</p>
<div id="tableauViz2"></div>
<p>
These visualizations reveal how subjective weightings shape the story told by the World Happiness Report. The reliance on variables like social support and freedom to make life choices privileges certain cultural perspectives while marginalizing others. For example, a respondent in Finland might equate social support with government programs, while someone in Greece might think of close-knit familial ties. Yet, these differences are flattened into a single metric, creating rankings that obscure cultural diversity.
</p>
<p>
By narrowing our understanding of happiness into a predefined mold, the report excludes broader contributors to well-being. The role of mental health care, the impact of societal attitudes toward neurological diversity, or even the influence of environmental stressors remains unexamined. This parallels the historical use of IQ: just as intelligence tests created narratives of superiority and inferiority, happiness metrics construct an idealized vision of well-being that may not align with lived experiences.
</p>
<p>
The reliance on statistical tools to quantify happiness reflects a broader trend of applying these methods to human populations. While the stakes may seem less severe than in the case of IQ, the implications are no less profound. Rankings shape global perceptions, influencing policy and priorities in ways that often go unquestioned. In this sense, the World Happiness Report acts as a modern prescription for an idealized way of life—an elite vision of happiness exported as universal truth.
</p>
<p>
As we reflect on these themes, it becomes clear that the subjective weightings in the World Happiness Report mirror the biases embedded in AI systems and statistical methodologies alike. The act of defining what constitutes happiness, intelligence, or progress is not neutral—it is a profound exercise of power.
</p>
<p>
This brings us to the final question: What values should guide the tools we use to measure humanity? Are we doomed to perpetuate systems that privilege certain perspectives at the expense of others, or can we build frameworks that genuinely reflect the diversity and complexity of human experience? These questions guide the concluding section, where we examine the broader implications of this project. Proceed to the next section: <a href="conclusion.html">Conclusion</a>.
</p>
</section>
</div>
<footer>
<p>© 2024 Colin Geraghty. All rights reserved.</p>
</footer>
<script>
// First Tableau Visualization
const viz1Container = document.getElementById("tableauViz1");
const viz1Url = "https://public.tableau.com/views/EUHasitis/Dashboard2"; // Replace with actual Tableau URL
const viz1Options = {
hideTabs: true,
width: "100%",
height: "600px"
};
const viz1 = new tableau.Viz(viz1Container, viz1Url, viz1Options);
// Second Tableau Visualization
const viz2Container = document.getElementById("tableauViz2");
const viz2Url = "https://public.tableau.com/views/EUS_17272910513640/Dashboard3"; // Replace with actual Tableau URL
const viz2Options = {
hideTabs: true,
width: "100%",
height: "600px"
};
const viz2 = new tableau.Viz(viz2Container, viz2Url, viz2Options);
</script>
</body>
</html>