The Nonlinear Library EA - UPDATE: Critical Failures in the World Happiness Report's Model of National Satisfaction by Alexander Loewi
Feb 24, 2024
03:11
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: UPDATE: Critical Failures in the World Happiness Report's Model of National Satisfaction, published by Alexander Loewi on February 24, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
There has been a substantial update since this was first posted. The lead authors of the World Happiness Report have now reached out to me directly. Details at the bottom.
The World Happiness Report (WHR) is currently the best known and most widely accepted source of information on global life satisfaction. Its six-variable model of satisfaction is reproduced in textbooks and has been published in the same form by the United Nations since 2012. However, almost no justification is given for why these six variables are used.
In response, I attempted to do the only thing I thought was responsible -- do an exhaustive search over 5,000 variables in international datasets, and see empirically what actually predicts satisfaction. I've consulted with life satisfaction specialists both in economics departments and major think tanks, and none thought this had been done before.
The variables that are selected by this more rigorous method are dramatically different from those of the WHR, and the resulting model is substantially more accurate both in and out of sample. In particular, the WHR leaves out entire categories of variables on subjects as varied, and as basic, as education, discrimination, and political power. Perhaps most dramatically, the way the WHR presents the data appears to suggest that GDP explains 40% of model variation.
I find that, with my measurably more accurate model, it in fact predicts 2.5%.
The graph below ranks the model variables by contribution, which is the amount of the total satisfaction of a country they are estimated to predict. For interpretation, 1.5 points of satisfaction on the 11-point scale is equivalent to the grief felt at the death of a life partner, meaning these numbers may be numerically small, but they are enormously significant behaviorally.
All variables included here were chosen by a penalized regression out of a total of 1,058 viable candidates, after 5,500 variables were examined. (Most were too missing to be used and trusted.) They are colored by significance, with even least still marginally significant, and almost all significant at the 0.001 level.
I have already gotten extremely positive feedback from academic circles, and have started looking for communities of practice that would find this valuable.
A link to the paper is below:
https://dovecoteinstitute.org/files/Loewi-Life-Satisfaction-2024.pdf
UPDATE: The lead authors of the World Happiness Report have now reached out to me directly. Already this is a shock, as I had no idea if my findings would even be taken seriously. The authors suggested changes to my methods, and I have spent the last few weeks incorporating their suggestions, during which I thought it was only responsible to take the post down.
However having now taken their recommendations into account -- I find the results are in every meaningful way identical, and in fact now substantially reinforced. The post and paper have been updated to reflect what changes there were.
Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org
There has been a substantial update since this was first posted. The lead authors of the World Happiness Report have now reached out to me directly. Details at the bottom.
The World Happiness Report (WHR) is currently the best known and most widely accepted source of information on global life satisfaction. Its six-variable model of satisfaction is reproduced in textbooks and has been published in the same form by the United Nations since 2012. However, almost no justification is given for why these six variables are used.
In response, I attempted to do the only thing I thought was responsible -- do an exhaustive search over 5,000 variables in international datasets, and see empirically what actually predicts satisfaction. I've consulted with life satisfaction specialists both in economics departments and major think tanks, and none thought this had been done before.
The variables that are selected by this more rigorous method are dramatically different from those of the WHR, and the resulting model is substantially more accurate both in and out of sample. In particular, the WHR leaves out entire categories of variables on subjects as varied, and as basic, as education, discrimination, and political power. Perhaps most dramatically, the way the WHR presents the data appears to suggest that GDP explains 40% of model variation.
I find that, with my measurably more accurate model, it in fact predicts 2.5%.
The graph below ranks the model variables by contribution, which is the amount of the total satisfaction of a country they are estimated to predict. For interpretation, 1.5 points of satisfaction on the 11-point scale is equivalent to the grief felt at the death of a life partner, meaning these numbers may be numerically small, but they are enormously significant behaviorally.
All variables included here were chosen by a penalized regression out of a total of 1,058 viable candidates, after 5,500 variables were examined. (Most were too missing to be used and trusted.) They are colored by significance, with even least still marginally significant, and almost all significant at the 0.001 level.
I have already gotten extremely positive feedback from academic circles, and have started looking for communities of practice that would find this valuable.
A link to the paper is below:
https://dovecoteinstitute.org/files/Loewi-Life-Satisfaction-2024.pdf
UPDATE: The lead authors of the World Happiness Report have now reached out to me directly. Already this is a shock, as I had no idea if my findings would even be taken seriously. The authors suggested changes to my methods, and I have spent the last few weeks incorporating their suggestions, during which I thought it was only responsible to take the post down.
However having now taken their recommendations into account -- I find the results are in every meaningful way identical, and in fact now substantially reinforced. The post and paper have been updated to reflect what changes there were.
Thanks for listening. To help us out with The Nonlinear Library or to learn more, please visit nonlinear.org