"Happiness economics" and the joy of sex
Got a good bank balance but not much between-the-sheets action? If so, you're probably not as happy as someone with less cash and more carnal exploits.
Researchers into "happiness economics" (who comes up with these terms?) have concluded that more money doesn’t always get you more sex, while more sex is better for your personal happiness than more money.
After analysing data on self-reported levels of sexual activity (no risk of exaggeration there, then) and happiness of 16,000 people, Dartmouth College economist David Blanchflower and Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick concluded that sex "enters so strongly [and] positively in happiness equations" that they estimate increasing intercourse from once a month to once a week is equivalent to the amount of happiness generated by getting an additional £27,177.30 in income for the average Brit.
"The evidence we see is that money brings some amounts of happiness, but not as much as what economists might have thought," says Blanchflower.
"We had to look to psychologists and realise that other things really matter."
So personal experience of life itself didn't give you any clues, then?
Despite popular opinion, the intrepid duo found that having more money doesn't mean that you get more sex; there's no difference between the frequency of sex and income level.
But they did decide that sex seems to have a greater effect on happiness levels in highly educated – and presumably wealthier – people than on those with lower educational achievements.
The pair also calculated that a lasting marriage equates to happiness generated by getting an extra £54,355.32 each year, while divorce produces a "happiness depletion" of £35,874.51 annually.
Which is all very interesting. But how is this research now going to be of use? Is Gordon Brown going to stand up in Parliament and announce that nurses aren't getting a pay rise next year, but if they start shagging more they'll be so much happier that they won't mind?
Who comes up with the ideas for what to research in the first place?
It's almost certainly not without its uses, but who suggested trying to find out if there was a correlation between the frequency of male ejaculation from puberty onward and the incidence of prostate cancer?
And who thought that it would be a good idea to see whether spunk had anti-depressant qualities? And why didn't they bother to tell us whether swallowing the stuff is as beneficial as taking it vaginally?
Should someone be hiding behind the water coolers of institutes and universities up and down the country and researching the researchers?
Never mind that – does anyone know how to get funding to examine the difference in psychological and physiological responses to whipping and being whipped?
Researchers into "happiness economics" (who comes up with these terms?) have concluded that more money doesn’t always get you more sex, while more sex is better for your personal happiness than more money.
After analysing data on self-reported levels of sexual activity (no risk of exaggeration there, then) and happiness of 16,000 people, Dartmouth College economist David Blanchflower and Andrew Oswald of the University of Warwick concluded that sex "enters so strongly [and] positively in happiness equations" that they estimate increasing intercourse from once a month to once a week is equivalent to the amount of happiness generated by getting an additional £27,177.30 in income for the average Brit.
"The evidence we see is that money brings some amounts of happiness, but not as much as what economists might have thought," says Blanchflower.
"We had to look to psychologists and realise that other things really matter."
So personal experience of life itself didn't give you any clues, then?
Despite popular opinion, the intrepid duo found that having more money doesn't mean that you get more sex; there's no difference between the frequency of sex and income level.
But they did decide that sex seems to have a greater effect on happiness levels in highly educated – and presumably wealthier – people than on those with lower educational achievements.
The pair also calculated that a lasting marriage equates to happiness generated by getting an extra £54,355.32 each year, while divorce produces a "happiness depletion" of £35,874.51 annually.
Which is all very interesting. But how is this research now going to be of use? Is Gordon Brown going to stand up in Parliament and announce that nurses aren't getting a pay rise next year, but if they start shagging more they'll be so much happier that they won't mind?
Who comes up with the ideas for what to research in the first place?
It's almost certainly not without its uses, but who suggested trying to find out if there was a correlation between the frequency of male ejaculation from puberty onward and the incidence of prostate cancer?
And who thought that it would be a good idea to see whether spunk had anti-depressant qualities? And why didn't they bother to tell us whether swallowing the stuff is as beneficial as taking it vaginally?
Should someone be hiding behind the water coolers of institutes and universities up and down the country and researching the researchers?
Never mind that – does anyone know how to get funding to examine the difference in psychological and physiological responses to whipping and being whipped?
posted by Amanda Kendal at 11:31 am
2 Comments:
This isn't fair.
You're getting more visitors than I am, and I've set a spam trap (which isn't working by the way), and you've only been going for five days.
I'm going to nudge the counter this weekend.
Yes, but I do keep visiting your blog – so I'm trying to do my bit. ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home