Re:Good genes are nice, but joy is better (2017)
by circlefavshape on Tuesday April 26, 2022 @05:05AM
(#31165387)
"Other researchers have investigated the effects of life events which can cause medium term and perhaps permanent change in set points. These events include the unexpected death of a child (Wortman & Silver, 1987), repeated spells of unemployment which have a ‘scarring effect’ (Clark et al, 2004), becoming widowed and perhaps getting married (Lucas et al, 2003). Amusingly, the only favourable or positive ‘event’ unambiguously shown to enhance long term subjective well being seems to be cosmetic surgery (Wengle, 1986; Loewenstein & Frederick, 1999)"
Copy-pasted from a 2006 paper by Bruce Headey I had lying around. I haven't looked into this in a few years but you might be able chase those refs down if you're interested
I think it's astounding that people take happiness-set-point theory so literally. Has everyone here been uniformly happy/miserable throughout their life? I certainly haven't - when things have been bad I've been miserable, when things have been good I've been happy
Any links? It isn't clear whether you are talking about cosmetic surgery to mitigate an obvious issue (for example, correcting a hair lip or removing a disfiguring facial birthmark), as compared to cosmetic beauty enhancements (nose job or tummy tuck). I would guess "enhancements" have a very strong sampling bias, because of a strong correlations with disposable income, belonging to certain social groups, and the type of person that prioritises surgery over other expenses. Adjusting to remove bias would be problematic?
I also suspect that there would be an inherent bias in reported studies, because the cosmetic surgery industry will fund and publish results that benefit the industry?