1) Happiness is not as subjective as people think. Research suggest that what people state about their own happiness correlates very well with how friends and colleagues would describe a person as.

2) Having lived abroad extensively and traveled around many places keenly trying to observe these things I'd say Norwegian happiness is real. But we have a tendency in Norway to take every good thing for granted and complain a lot. E.g. I noticed when in North American, despite equal wealth, there is a lot more hardship and stress. You can even tell just by looking at people. People are stressed out about over demanding jobs, risk of losing health care, crime, dysfunctional politics etc.

We Norwegians have among the best work-life balances of anywhere. Works doesn't stress people out as much as many other places. And the government provided welfare services means we worry a lot less about stuff than people in the rest of the world.

3) Another thing I notice is that people trust each other to a high level in Norway. In many other parts of the world suspicion and trust grinds on people. It can imagine it is exaushting dealing with a constant paranoia where other people, the government, the police etc can never be trusted.

There have been plenty of studies showing that when you have a homogenous society, people are more likely to care about the common good.

When you have an "us" and "them" society, people are a lot more concerned that "they" are getting over and not working as hard.

> 1) Happiness is not as subjective as people think. Research suggest that what people state about their own happiness correlates very well with how friends and colleagues would describe a person as.

This just means that how happy a person feels correlates well with how happy others perceive them to be. This says nothing about whether their subjective feelings reflect objective reality.

Research actually seems to suggest that happiness is very subjective, and may in fact have a strong genetic component[0]. I.e. whether a particular person is happy is dictated less by their circumstances and more by their outlook/personality/genetics. Of course, one's circumstances also play a role (e.g. a person will be less happy immediately after the death of a loved one), but subjective factors seem to win out overall.

[0] e.g. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/media-spotlight/201302/...

>happiness is very subjective, and may infact have a strong genetic component.

I agree that happiness is subjective and personality trait expression may very well have a genetic component, but I wouldn't dismiss societal and environmental factors entirely.

For example, inequality and air pollution are also associated with unhappiness.

https://news.virginia.edu/content/income-inequality-increase... https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130118125955.h...

Do you have a source for any of these assertions (especially number 1) or are they all anecdotal?

It seems to me that your points 2 and 3 are one and the same.

I do know from personal experience that being open (like super open) about your feelings, and in particular, complaining about one's personal condition, is a bit more muted in Norway vs. say, USA.

But I guess one could argue such an attitude might actually make you happier, in addition to merely appearing happier on reports? Who knows...

I believe one of the keys to happiness is simply appreciating what you have. I've met people that live very comfortable lives but are perpetually miserable because nothing is ever enough for them.

At times, I think social media helps perpetuate this unhappiness, especially when we have a tendency to only showcase the best in public. Getting married. Having a kid. Happy moments. Vacations. Career achievements. Keeping up with the Joneses has been a term for over a 100 years.

Fantastic events are wonderful to see in small doses, but when it's a constant stream of oneupsmanship of who is doing better than others, it's easy to get caught up and think, "Gee, everyone is leading such incredible lives, why aren't I doing the same?" And to temporarily fill that need by posting something yourself, which only perpetuates the cycle.

I found QoL improvements when I chose to abstain from Facebook in December, specifically an increase in mindfulness and satisfaction with my daily life. Of course, that doesn't mean I don't encourage self-improvement, but I think the stress/angst that can arise from social networks can be counterproductive to ones own journey.

It's incredibly telling when you know people really well that project a model of perfection on Facebook/Instagram whose real life/attitude is an entirely different story. I can't understand how these people justify their untruthful social projection when they know plenty of people that see both sides. The best (maybe worst?) part is all the people that don't know them locally/currently who provide endless gobs of affirmation for how wonderful of a person they are.

It's reasons like these, and the complete waste of time and escapism that has become Facebook in my life that I made a resolution to unfollow everyone except the closest family and friends and delete the mobile app. So far I don't feel like I'm missing anything, and ultimately I think my life has become richer/better for it. If you aren't being paid for it, or finding great joy from it there are much more fulfilling things to kill your time with... reading, the outdoors, time with friends (unglued from the digital world).

Most people aren't intentionally misleading. It is natural to share happy photos, announce births etc. The problem is due to a) it being unnatural to publicly brag about financial problems, divorce, etc, and b) the sheer number of Facebook friends making the same sort of milestone posts, combined with Internet time replacing in-person time where more topics are discussed, resulting in a perception of being surrounded by non-stop happiness.

Interesting. And on the flip side, you have the law of Jante. Or is it OK to proclaim one's self as super happy? Maybe Jante is more about material success?

Janteloven is more about not assuming you are better than others. Being happy is perfectly compatible with that.

Starting a business and attempting to make millions, however, is not.

A colleague of mine has a childhood friend who owns a grocery store. Sensing that business was good, he opened a second grocery store in a neighboring town. It went great until the rest of the town knew he owned two stores -- then they started boycotting the second store, which was quickly forced to close its doors.

Janteloven, the climate and the institutionalized introversion are the worst aspects of Scandinavian life. Other than that, things are all in all very good.

I think you misunderstand Janteloven. Scandinavian countries are capitalist societies (even if Americans believe the health care and high tax makes us socialist) and prosperity and success based on hard work or talent is generally appreciated - as long as you "keep both feet on the ground" which means don't act if you are "better than other people" and pay your tax.

I suspect something else was going on with your friends second store, since successful stores growing into chains is a pretty common. Did people officially boycott the store or is it just his interpretation of events?

People in town were literally talking to each other saying it's not right that one guy owns two stores and makes so much money, encouraging each other to shop elsewhere. This was in Ørsta in Sunnmøre.

Obviously there is some geographic and socio-cultural variation; you wouldn't see the same degree of skepticism among most people in the biggest cities, but I am pretty confident I haven't misunderstood what Janteloven says. It's not a positive thing, and not conductive to an environment of high performance.

Granted, things might be better now than when I went to public school 15 years ago, but back then this attitude was practically institutionalized. I eventually went to private school after 3 years of being forced to sit through science classes of stuff I already knew, that were regardless torpedoed by uncontrollable classroom clowns. In private school, we had "choose your level" classes, and things improved. Many friends in university had similar experiences.

It was quite a surprise to hear of high schools in the US that actually cultivated students who wanted to learn more than the minimum.

I don't think that paints a very good picture of what Janteloven / Law of Jante is.

In many other cultures, success is celebrated. Janteloven is the opposite of that, ensuring that success is criticized an seen as undeserved or lucky.

I find it to be one of the worst aspects of Scandinavian culture, which is full of other good things, that I love.

The Law of Jante is not about success as such, and not really about criticizing success either. It is a law that says you should not pretend you are better than your peers. If success makes you act as if you are actually better than other people (bragging, acting arrogant, or just publicly suggesting that you actually deserve the success) you are met with disapproval. But the disapproval is not towards the success itself, but towards acting differently because of it.

It might be too long since I read Aksel Sandemose's "En flyktning krysser sit spor", which is where the Law of Jante originates, but if you read the 10 commandments of Jante, I think you are a bit on the soft side in your interpretation. :)

http://denstoredanske.dk/Kunst_og_kultur/Litteratur/Nyere_mo...

The book is extremely harsh, but I don't really think the law as expressed in the book is applicable to Scandinavian culture in general.

Also, the Law of Jante made him kill a sailor at a deserted bay in Newfoundland. So we should be careful when understanding the book as some universal sociological study.

In the book he states the law is a way for the lower classes to keep each other down, and he explicit states the law of Jante exists among the proletariat everywhere and is stronger in Brooklyn than in Jante (the fictional Scandinavian town in the book). He was a socialist, of course.

I do think a "soft form" of the law can be used to understand Scandinavian culture to some extent.

I'd imagine when you're given a study like this it doesn't have any clues that the context of such a study should be taken in the rest of the world. That would be a huge methodological failure on the part of the study.