New GB News Channel

[NFN FC 1,123]

58 minutes ago, Herman said:

We just had a pandemic, not quite a war but with as heavy a death toll. Did that make everyone happy?

Is Daubney, a man the same age as me, who were born over 20 years after the war, talking absolute rose-tinted, union jack flavoured nonsense?

I'd say it was the opposite to war. We mostly sat and cowered in our homes rather than went out into the world to fight, grow, build etc.

 

[Herman 9,756]

24 minutes ago, NFN FC said:

I'd say it was the opposite to war. We mostly sat and cowered in our homes rather than went out into the world to fight, grow, build etc.

 

I think the first part of your sentence is the experience of the majority of people during wartime. 

[Barbe bleu 823]

43 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

The impact of war on happiness: The case of Ukraine - ScienceDirect

Basically, if you're not directly affected, happiness levels aren't affected, but if you're caught smack-bang in the crossfire, it's miserable. Daubney's completely wrong - they were not happier at all.

And the notion that men are "hunter-gatherers" is basically the same myth as women being inherently mothers - gender roles are dubious at best.

The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather Is Wrong | Scientific American

Shattering the myth of men as hunters and women as gatherers | CNN

thanks for looking. The top article does tally with my initial thoughts and it does seem, even at this horrific stage, that war has positive effects.    What if we could capture those and take out the negative?

I'll read lower articles later but I'm not sure they will fully rid me of the belief that men especially (not necessarily  all) seek status and tribe and that if these urges are repressed they result in inappropriate or harmful acts and pained feelings

 

[Barbe bleu 823]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

We just had a pandemic, not quite a war but with as heavy a death toll. Did that make everyone happy?

Is Daubney, a man the same age as me, who were born over 20 years after the war, talking absolute rose-tinted, union jack flavoured nonsense?

Google Jimmy Carter 'moral equivalent to war' speech. Its difficult to tell as the clip has been deliberately edited but daubney seems to be saying exactly the same thing as Jimmy Carter (who I imagine is towards the top of the president list for many).

 

Edited March 22 by Barbe bleu

[sonyc 5,515]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

We just had a pandemic, not quite a war but with as heavy a death toll. Did that make everyone happy?

Is Daubney, a man the same age as me, who were born over 20 years after the war, talking absolute rose-tinted, union jack flavoured nonsense?

A lot of people lost their houses, their sons, their livelihoods and for many survivors what they witnessed was kept very private for decades (watching the numerous accounts of veterans) because of severe trauma. I think his comparison is therefore awkward and even trite.

What he does perhaps intimate though, albeit it is oblique, is I think, about purpose and a sense of unity in a time of real danger. We all rally to an unjust cause, to people in our local communities when they need it. Volunteering is an example.

I think Covid did bring posters together too in the early days here. Likewise, if someone is unwell this forum always raises itself. So it's about difficulty and common understanding that is important ultimately.

Life, as @The Raptor has recently posted, is sometimes a challenge. Current consumer society and social media make it feel that happiness is there for all. Happiness is a lost cause because it is fleeting. Contentment and acceptance are better terms because they imply a deeper perspective.

[king canary 7,605]

10 minutes ago, sonyc said:

A lot of people lost their houses, their sons, their livelihoods and for many survivors what they witnessed was kept very private for decades (watching the numerous accounts of veterans) because of severe trauma. I think his comparison is therefore awkward and even trite.

What he does perhaps intimate though, albeit it is oblique, is I think, about purpose and a sense of unity in a time of real danger. We all rally to an unjust cause, to people in our local communities when they need it. Volunteering is an example.

I think Covid did bring posters together too in the early days here. Likewise, if someone is unwell this forum always raises itself. So it's about difficulty and common understanding that is important ultimately.

Life, as @The Raptor has recently posted, is sometimes a challenge. Current consumer society and social media make it feel that happiness is there for all. Happiness is a lost cause because it is fleeting. Contentment and acceptance are better terms because they imply a deeper perspective.

I think the first COVID lockdown did engender a similar sense of togetherness in this country. There was a general feeling of 'we're all in this together, pulling in the same direction' for the first few months. However it frayed quite quickly and that sort of unity only lasts so long. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

38 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Google Jimmy Carter 'moral equivalent to war' speech. Its difficult to tell as the clip has been deliberately edited but daubney seems to be saying exactly the same thing as Jimmy Carter (who I imagine is towards the top of the president list for many).

 

Problem is, his argument's on a flawed foundation to start with. Britain was NOT happier during the war, absolutely no substantial, quantified longitudinal evidence exists to bear that out. And Carter's MEOW speech was very squarely focused on energy policy from the get-go.

EDIT: If you're trying to make the argument that a sense of purpose is required, then I'd agree, but there are so many ways we can create that without needing to create wars.

Edited March 22 by TheGunnShow

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

15 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think the first COVID lockdown did engender a similar sense of togetherness in this country. There was a general feeling of 'we're all in this together, pulling in the same direction' for the first few months. However it frayed quite quickly and that sort of unity only lasts so long. 

Didn't help when the scarecrow-haired spacker broke his own rules, to be fair.

[king canary 7,605]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Didn't help when the scarecrow-haired spacker broke his own rules, to be fair.

 I think also most have stories of neighbours or similar taking the **** which helped it fall apart a fair bit. 

The Boris partygate stuff was the final nail in the coffin for any further compliance though. My Tory voting, Boris supporting in-laws both still talk about how angry that whole situation made them.

[sonyc 5,515]

17 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Didn't help when the scarecrow-haired spacker broke his own rules, to be fair.

Yep, he had a proper opportunity to really take a nation with him. He wanted to be a Churchill but couldn't take on the mantle.  It was a very damaging time in terms of national messaging. Chaotic even. Further, it continued post covid with numerous scandals.

I'm sure too that many voters won't be voting Conservative for the above reason. So much for the British sense of fair play. 

[king canary 7,605]

56 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Yep, he had a proper opportunity to really take a nation with him. He wanted to be a Churchill but couldn't take on the mantle.  It was a very damaging time in terms of national messaging. Chaotic even. Further, it continued post covid with numerous scandals.

I'm sure too that many voters won't be voting Conservative for the above reason. So much for the British sense of fair play. 

Partygate absolutely killed him off as a political force as it resonates strongly with the kind of people who usually vote Conservative

Just show your average pensioner aged Tory voter the photo of the Queen sitting alone at her husbands funeral next to Boris raising a glass of bubbly in Downing Street with his mates- it goes down like a cup of cold sick.

[Barbe bleu 823]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Problem is, his argument's on a flawed foundation to start with. Britain was NOT happier during the war, absolutely no substantial, quantified longitudinal evidence exists to bear that out. And Carter's MEOW speech was very squarely focused on energy policy from the get-go.

EDIT: If you're trying to make the argument that a sense of purpose is required, then I'd agree, but there are so many ways we can create that without needing to create wars.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that we start a war to make people happy, that's lunacy and shouldn't need to be said. Just like it shouldn't need to be said that its not a great idea to manufacture snd release a killer virus because it builds unity.w

However, there are feelings associated with wars that are positive: sense of purpose, belonging, camaraderie, pride, status, excitement etc that are incredibly positive.   Lots of people really do feel that they were at their happiest during a war.

If one could distil what it is that creates the positive feelings and separate them from the negative it would be a hugely positive thing to do. I suspect daubney was making that point (clip cut off so who really knows) and its the same point that Carter (an 'approved' president) was making.  

Edited March 22 by Barbe bleu

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm not for a minute suggesting that we start a war to make people happy, that's lunacy and shouldn't need to be said.

However, there are feelings associated with wars that are positive: sense of purpose, belonging, camaraderie, pride, status, excitement etc that are incredibly positive.   Lots of people really do feel that they were at their happiest during a war.

If one could distil what it is that creates the positive feelings and separate them from the negative it would be a hugely positive thing to do. I suspect daubney was making that point (clip cut off so who really knows) and its the same point that Carter (an 'approved' president) was making.  

The bit in bold doesn't really hold up. That Ukraine link I put in cast it into question - those under attack become far unhappier, those in the same country but not under attack stay consistent in terms of happiness. If Daubney's referring to older UK citizens then survivor bias and the Pollyanna effect render their perceptions unreliable, and there's definitely no longitudinal study for happiness in the UK from so far.

To use a completely different field where there is much more evidence regarding happiness, it has frequently been bandied around by dodgy pseudo-scientific groups that having children/getting married makes you happier. Whilst we should always allow for the idea that there will always be exceptions to rules, there were still several problems with their research.

1. Initial attempts at this were not longitudinal (this means they did not measure the same people over a period of time, they were just a one-off measurement) so were inherently a correlation/causation fallacy by default. If you're going to claim that something makes people happier then you'd logically need to measure at least twice, before and after. They didn't do that.

2. Even on longitudinal studies, what is usually noted is that whilst there is an increase in happiness in the overwhelming number of cases to start with at birth/marriage, it tends to fall back to previous levels over a varied period of time, usually between six months and a couple of years (a honeymoon period, so to speak). There is a temporary rise, but they fall back in line.

3. Said studies also have a knack of deliberately missing out those who temporarily had the condition, then for some reason no longer filled the criteria. The obvious one here would be the widowed/divorced, who tend to be unhappier, yet by definition to be widowed or divorced, you have to be married in the first place. (I suspect similar for parents who lost their kids, but not aware of research into that - or if that was noted in a longitudinal study).

I agree that Daubney could have been trying to make that point, but he picked a shocker of an example where the facts don't bear him out.

[Nuff Said 5,131]

13 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

It doesn't really matter why people remember some events more fondly than they were, it's real regardless of the bias

I'd imagine that there are lots of people studying the ukraine conflict and its effects on happiness.  I'd imagine that the general findings are that being in the east is a throughly miserable experience but that in the west happiness is holding up despite everything.  Once it's done and dusted as one day it surely must there will be as much pride as there is deep and horrific trauma.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that war is anything other than catastrophic. But daubney is onto something when he says that we could use a 'struggle' that meets our  (mainly men's) evolutionary needs to be hunter gatherers without the violence (if that is what he said, clip.was edited for 'comedic' effect).  I would think that he is an absolute visionary requiring accolades rather than mockery on a regional football forum, but it's not exactly a new idea...

 

Reminds me of this which I read earlier today: “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”.

 

Or, as argued here: https://unearnedwisdom.com/strong-men-create-good-times-analysis/, maybe this would be more accurate: “Hard times, if optimally gauged so as not to produce too much stress, create a few strong men, sometimes, who create good times, if the good times are excessively good, they create a few weak men, who create hard times, but mostly for themselves, and only sometimes.”

[Barbe bleu 823]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

The bit in bold doesn't really hold up. That Ukraine link I put in cast it into question - those under attack become far unhappier, those in the same country but not under attack stay consistent in terms of happiness. If Daubney's referring to older UK citizens then survivor bias and the Pollyanna effect render their perceptions unreliable, and there's definitely no longitudinal study for happiness in the UK from so far.
 

I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that some, probably most people feel better when they have a sense of purpose, belonging, status, pride etc and with the idea that war does bring these out on people.

I understand what you say but your evidence bar is far too high.  You are asking for absolute proof of happiness when I am not sure that there is really even yet a definition of happiness that can be measured in your terms. You are also suggesting that your proof requires comparisons along time yet dismissing as unreliable and biased any recollection of the past, despite recollection being a prerequisite for comparison.

But you are  missing the point.  It's not really a question of 'did they all enjoy the war'  the important question is 'do we feel happier or more content if we have a sense of purpose, identity, belonging of the type that war can mainifest, and , if so, can we find that in other things?'

Seems a bit odd to me to claim that men especially, don't seek belonging, tribalism and identity on a football forum, when supporting a football team is pretty much as close as you can get to joining playing out the rituals of war in a safe  and mostly harmless manner

 

 

Edited March 22 by Barbe bleu

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

59 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Reminds me of this which I read earlier today: “Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.”.

 

Or, as argued here: https://unearnedwisdom.com/strong-men-create-good-times-analysis/, maybe this would be more accurate: “Hard times, if optimally gauged so as not to produce too much stress, create a few strong men, sometimes, who create good times, if the good times are excessively good, they create a few weak men, who create hard times, but mostly for themselves, and only sometimes.”

The bit in bold is nonsense, and about as perfect an example of survivor bias as you could imagine.
 

18 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

1. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that some, probably most people feel better when they have a sense of purpose, belonging, status, pride etc and with the idea that war does bring these out on people.

2. I understand what you say but your evidence bar is far too high.  You are asking for absolute proof of happiness when I am not sure that there is really even yet a definition of happiness that can be measured in your terms. You are also suggesting that your proof requires comparisons along time yet dismissing as unreliable and biased any recollection of the past, despite recollection being a prerequisite for comparison.

But you are  missing the point.  It's not really a question of 'did they all enjoy the war'  the important question is 'do we feel happier or more content if we have a sense of purpose, identity, belonging of the type that war can manifest, and , if so can we find that in other things?'

3. Seems a bit odd to me to claim that men especially, don't seek belonging, tribalism and identity on a football forum, when supporting a football team is pretty much as close as you can get to joining playing out the rituals of war in a safe  and mostly harmless manner

 

 

1. That's not up for dispute regarding purpose and belonging, so also linked somewhat to 3. The real question was Daubney's notion that people were happier during the war, and the Ukraine research thrown in really puts it into question.

2. It isn't, I even gave examples of the type of research that is needed, showing fields where happiness was measured over time. If you are asked about your state in, to give an example, 1980 and the result is noted in 1980 for later reference, then by definition it will be more reliable than saying in 2017 that "well, in 1980 I felt such and such". This is why I made my initial observation of the Pollyanna principle as over time it's well documented that people tend to remember the good more than the bad.

Longitudinal studies have been used for quite some time, and indeed some social surveys such as the American Time Use Survey have been going on for decades.

I'm asking for a longitudinal comparison over time, covering the war periods. Such longitudinal studies are perfectly normal (just rarely used in war scenarios), so the evidence bar is anything but far too high. The point is, Daubney doesn't have any such evidence, at which point Hitchen's Razor applies.

3. Where has anyone claimed that men don't seek belonging/tribalism/identity?

Edited March 22 by TheGunnShow

[Barbe bleu 823]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

 Where has anyone claimed that men don't seek belonging/tribalism/identity?

And the the crux of the matter

We all accept the above as obvious and most of us accept that these feelings are heightened in  times of war. That's probably enough for the sake of this argument: daubnry wasn't saying 'war is great, let's have more of it' he was saying that  'we all need a purpose, a tribe and an identity. We had that in the war and  we can feel lost without it'...and then the clip ended...

 

Edited March 22 by Barbe bleu