I blogged a few days back about the interesting new paper by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers analyzing trends in happiness by gender, and finding statistically significant reductions in how happy women are relative to men.
Elsewhere on the Internet, the paper has drawn the ire of a number of bloggers.
Stevenson and Wolfers have fired back on Marginal Revolution, where Wolfers is guest blogging this week.
In the end, I think the critics score some minor points, but Stevenson and Wolfers are the ultimate winners. The results they find are compelling and statistically significant, but of a moderate magnitude in terms of “economic” significance. By “economic significance,” I mean “how important the effects are in terms of real world impacts.” Women in 1972 were at the 53.3 percentile of the male distribution; they are now at the 48.8 percentile. Is this a monumental shift? Maybe not. But compared to how much other factors move happiness metrics, it is pretty large. They are quite honest about the magnitudes in the paper. To the extent their results are being exaggerated, it is by people like me who write blog posts about their paper without being explicit about the size of the effect. The authors can’t reasonably be blamed for that.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
“Stevenson and Wolfers are the ultimate winners” in the sense that they are getting a lot of publicity for their research, and publicity is currency.
But, in the end, the public is not well served by the PR machine having exaggerated the effect so greatly.
It also shows how the blogosphere can provide some control over this. I was impressed by the questions that were raised on the “Language Log” blog http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004965.html
“Stevenson and Wolfers are the ultimate winners” in the sense that they are getting a lot of publicity for their research, and publicity is currency.
But, in the end, the public is not well served by the PR machine having exaggerated the effect so greatly.
It also shows how the blogosphere can provide some control over this. I was impressed by the questions that were raised on the “Language Log” blog http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004965.html
Dr. Levitt,
You vote for Stevenson and Wolfers; I vote for Liberman. Liberman’s main point, and the point that S&W don’t address at all is that the variation between groups is much smaller than the variation within groups. S says that the variation between groups is 1/8 of a standard deviation; assuming a normal distribution of happiness (a completely unwarranted assumption), if we want to maximize happiness, we shouldn’t focus on men v. women, but on why the people at the top of the distribution are so much happier than the people at the bottom. Unfortunately, i have a feeling that the data would ultimately show that the happy people are richer, healthier and better-looking which wouldn’t get many headlines, would it?
Dr. Levitt,
You vote for Stevenson and Wolfers; I vote for Liberman. Liberman’s main point, and the point that S&W don’t address at all is that the variation between groups is much smaller than the variation within groups. S says that the variation between groups is 1/8 of a standard deviation; assuming a normal distribution of happiness (a completely unwarranted assumption), if we want to maximize happiness, we shouldn’t focus on men v. women, but on why the people at the top of the distribution are so much happier than the people at the bottom. Unfortunately, i have a feeling that the data would ultimately show that the happy people are richer, healthier and better-looking which wouldn’t get many headlines, would it?
I think it’s got to do with two basic things :
1) hormones, and
2) manipulation of the male.
When the first shows up as a chemical fact, men naturally assume superiority.
When the second occurs, men ascribe it to the first, plus the physical fact that women have more delicate and complicated systems, especially mental ones. This reflects in inter-sexual conflict, giving a strong inpression to men that women are control freaks (true, IMHO).
The end result is, either way, women end up feeling inadequate when confronted (directly or indirectly, as in imagined), and therefore feel unhappy.
I speak through experience.
Cheers, mate!
I think it’s got to do with two basic things :
1) hormones, and
2) manipulation of the male.
When the first shows up as a chemical fact, men naturally assume superiority.
When the second occurs, men ascribe it to the first, plus the physical fact that women have more delicate and complicated systems, especially mental ones. This reflects in inter-sexual conflict, giving a strong inpression to men that women are control freaks (true, IMHO).
The end result is, either way, women end up feeling inadequate when confronted (directly or indirectly, as in imagined), and therefore feel unhappy.
I speak through experience.
Cheers, mate!
Dr. Levitt – I am addressing this point here even though it is off-topic because I do not know of a way to write you otherwise. I just want to point out that I have no real problem with the partial RSS feed. However, after a month or so of use after the change, I can tell you that while I used to read 6 of every 10 articles posted, I now read roughly 1-2. I do not know why this is, exactly. Perhaps it’s because the partial feed doesn’t show me how long an article is, how much I’m about to commit to. But I thought you’d like to know how the change has affected the reading habits of someone who is neither for nor against partial feeds.
Dr. Levitt – I am addressing this point here even though it is off-topic because I do not know of a way to write you otherwise. I just want to point out that I have no real problem with the partial RSS feed. However, after a month or so of use after the change, I can tell you that while I used to read 6 of every 10 articles posted, I now read roughly 1-2. I do not know why this is, exactly. Perhaps it’s because the partial feed doesn’t show me how long an article is, how much I’m about to commit to. But I thought you’d like to know how the change has affected the reading habits of someone who is neither for nor against partial feeds.