physicsdude30 said:
Although surveys can have some social desirability bias in particular situations, if you have a case study interview face to face wouldn't there also be the possibility where they try to act socially desirable, especially because face to face is less anonymous?
What do you mean "some" bias? As if you could control for this with a statistical procedure? Social desirability bias means that people who are convinced that they should be happy, or are afraid to say that they aren't happy, will report themselves as being happy even if they're not. In fact, they might insist even more forcefully that they're happy to try to convince themselves. In principle this is a rational self-therapy strategy because happiness is largely the product of the subjective belief that one's experiences are good. But that doesn't change the fact that there is often a lag between the desire to interpret one's experiences as good and the actual experience of them as good.
However, the reason why I don't think people with more wealth or income can be truly happy is that their happiness is based on material prosperity, which is inherently vulnerable. This is not my argument - it's actually what Jesus tells the woman at the well about spiritual water never drying up. Sorry to bring up religion, but I felt I had to cite since I'm not the first person who came up with the idea. The point is that the wealthier you are, the more you have to lose, which translates into a certain degree of fear and unhappiness. Of course this is offset to some degree by the pleasure of the wealth itself, although this is offset by thrills and pleasures wearing off the more you consume them.
Likewise, people who are poor do experience unhappiness caused by material deprivation and social maltreatment. But if they have come to terms with the pain of having lost certain material comforts, they can still enjoy the inherent happiness of having good health or moments of peace, etc. Of course, if they're constantly being plagued by heath problems and social maltreatment, these moments of peace may be few and far between. Also, social maltreatment can stimulate self-maltreatment, I believe, where people self-hate because they internalize social judgment.
So I think there are causes for happiness and unhappiness at any level of material prosperity. Only, I think people who feel justified in expressing unhappiness are more likely to do report or otherwise express it than people who feel that they have no reason to be unhappy. This is why I think surveys about wealth and happiness always correlate more wealth with more happiness, not because wealthier people are immune from unhappiness. They might even be more repressed generally, and less happy for that reason.
What would your opinion be on relying on more than just case studies? In Science don't they say rather than proving you start out with an explanation and then try to disprove, so wouldn't testing from many different angles using different methods be useful?
There's no way to prove or disprove this except through self-reflection and what you can reasonably generalize on that basis. If you want to falsify the question of whether wealthier people are more repressed, you have to operationalize repression in a way that works for all prosperity levels. Then you could use psychology to ascertain whether it is possible to be happy despite or thanks to repression, which some people argue is the case. You could certainly deduce various testable hypotheses about the relationships between specific experiences defined as poverty-experiences and happiness and then attempt to falsify those. For example, you could hypothesize that sleeping outside makes people unhappy, unhealthy or both. Then you would just look for cases where someone sleeping outside was healthy and happy (if you can control for reporting bias, which is doubtful) and once you find a case you're sufficiently convinced is valid, voila', you have falsified the necessary relationship between sleeping outside and unhappiness. Now you have to look for other factors that mitigate sleeping outside as a cause of unhappiness and bad health or not. Systematic social science is tedious, isn't?
One thing is certain, though, I think. Having more control over your prosperity is more conducive to happiness than having less. That is the sad part about a socially-controlled economy - i.e. everyone's prosperity is dependent on someone else's contribution/spending/productivity. So everyone is trying to control each other to increase their own prosperity, which leads to other people feeling like they're losing control to others, which makes them feel less in-control and thus less happy.