“Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to ten at the top. Suppose we say that the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. If the top step is 10 and the bottom step is 0, on which step of the ladder do you feel you personally stand at the present time?”
Personally feels a little more convoluted than just asking "How happy are you, on a scale of 0-10?"
I'd also bet that they found the above "convoluted" question was one that led to the same people giving more consistent answers from day to day and moment to moment.
Even if I'm wrong I hope you see this is a much thornier problem than just asking a question and assuming the answer tells us anything about the person taking the survey.
There is also a lot of value in a question that works well enough, that you ask consistently over long stretches of time (or long stretches of distance). Maybe it's not perfect, but the longitudinal data would be worthless if they updated the wording every single year.
Although I'm no survey expert, the thing I'd like to bring to everyone's attention is how easy it is to not take into account people that have a degree of numeric or math illiteracy... which I guess they are the main target demographic that is included by these questions (and I can also guess that they make a worryingly large part of the demographic, because our systems are rarely inclusive).
In my experience, having met people from multiple countries during the time I've been living abroad, what I have noticed is that — in this world filled with inequality — it is a privilege to be able to have a good grasp in scientific subjects. And, for lots of different factors, people have setbacks or trauma that make it difficult to learn a subject that is either boring or painful to them.
So, yes the questions are a bit convoluted, but they help paint a mental image for probably the majority with a thing that they may be closely familiar with: stairs... Plus, it probably helps statisticians get a better signal to noise out of the questions, too.
Adding this nuance to the question serves to invite deeper thought and avoid assigning a motivation-based rating (like when you give the Uber driver 5 stars when what you felt was actually just "satisfactory").
A more basic rating question can invite other kinds of influence, such as a motivation in how they'd like their life to be perceived rather than how they genuinely feel it to be.
In surveys with less nuance the data tends to correlate around the extremes.
My happiness changes depending on many external factor and varies by hour and days, but the answer to the former question aren't going to change quite as often, would have probably provided the same answer over the entire year.
Some people will interpret it one way, some a subtly different way, but is there a reason that people's interpretation changes over time in a way that is more rapid and more significant than the underlying question of how good their life is broadly? Probably not.
There may be cultural differences that make it tricky to do comparisons between cultures / countries, but it should give something useful when looking at the same culture / country over time.
Now I know it's a metaphor and not a literal ladder, but it does make me wonder if that association skews the results at all..
For Finland, discussion seems to hinge on whether "happiness" is "close enough" to "contentedness".
Things that for example the article author's favorite USA does not have. But of course a Murkin' can't accept that. I fully expect him to gripe that somehow the Corruption Perceptions Index is also somehow unfair to his favorite country too, and just cannot be right.
You had me at blaming "elites".
Your question is likely to be interpreted as you asking the person's current MOOD hence different answers on different times are likely. While you are thinking of a less changing wider concept.
The social context is important too, there is a social stigma around admitting that you are not happy which will play into this question too.
(For example, he cites Blanchflower and Bryson because he prefers positive affect as a measurement of happiness – but doesn't note that Blanchflower and Bryson pool data for 2008-2017, so in terms of rankings they may be measuring something meaningful but different.)
People on HN tend to argue it’s sufficient data to be statistically significant, but I don’t see how.
The simplicity is nice, but for the (probable) fact that suicide attempts/rates and emigration don't correspond... so lets not call it happiness.
We live with a near-universal imbalance: the reign of thin hormones. These thin hormones promise satisfaction but never deliver. They spike and vanish, leaving behind only the impulse to chase the next hit. Philosophers once spoke of desires that change the self; today, our neurochemistry is being short-circuited before the self even enters the conversation.
A thick hormone is slower, steadier. It reshapes you in the process of living it—like the oxytocin that comes from trust, or the endorphins that build with persistence. But thin hormones—those dopamine flickers from notifications, likes, and swipes—do nothing but reproduce themselves. They deliver sensation without transformation, stimulation without growth.
Modern systems have perfected the art of hijacking our endocrine circuitry. Social media fires the neurons of connection without the chemistry of friendship. Porn delivers the hormonal spike of intimacy without the vulnerability that generates oxytocin. Productivity apps grant the dopamine signature of accomplishment with nothing actually achieved. We’ve built an economy not of meaning, but of molecules. And none of it seems to be making us more alive.
The point I took from the article is that we should stop paying attention to this meaningless metric. I didn't read it as a request to replace it with another metric.
It's a simple question, sure, but it's not clear that it's a very meaningful one, even if other approaches aren't necessarily any better. When I think of the word happiness, I don't exactly associate it with suicide or rarely smiling.
The odd thing however is that when I ask them whether they think the average Finn is happy, they say absolutely not, but when I ask them whether they themselves are happy, most of the time I get a "oh this place is actually pretty great for weirdos like me, I just mean like, normal people would hate it here". But that's the thing: No one normal chooses to live in Finland!
If you ask a Finn, most people are actually quite harsh to the Finnish government, economy, etc - specially as of recent, since Finland now has one of the worst unemployment rate in EU. But lifestyle here is quite sober, everyone has hobbies and are quite dedicated to them. I guess the Sauna and Avanto culture are the main happiness drivers here, and tbh after experiencing it, I wouldn't change for anything else.
You see it in things like business confidence going in both directions at various times, pessimism when things are going well, optimism when things are going poorly.
It is very convenient in politics, because you can choose which figure to report to make it seem like you are saying the same thing but you can switch between them to make things look good (or bad l, depending on your attention)
Happiness is found in different places for different people, thankfully.
Sometimes Norwegian TV would show Finnish dramas while I was growing up in the '80s, and the standing joke was that the typical Finnish drama had two guys hiking through the forest, one of them saying something, and then half an hour more of hiking before the other would reply. I don't remember whether that was accurate (it's not as if I'd have kept watching), but I suspect not.
That report is correct, it just they advertise with the wrong word in the headline, I guess because it is more click-bate title than having it as "The most content country"
Firstly because the social benefits system keeps a lot of people out of trouble ' call it bribery if you like, but it meets basic needs. Secondly because there's a lot of private "security" types around - for example in the supermarkets, keeping out drunks and dealing with shoplifters - letting the police focus on the real stuff.
Even with Trump we see a lot of policies and directions that the Democrats have pursued previously.
Unhappiness sounds much more pedestrian.
The quote really needs the first two lines:
Now is the winter of our discontent
made glorious summer by the sun of York.
York (Richard's brother, Edward, now King Edward IV) has overthrown King Henry VI. There's also an important pun: "York" also refers to their father, also named Richard, who was the Duke of York until his death at the hands of Henry's faction. So Edward is also the "son of York".
That said, Richard is being sarcastic. He's plotting the next political overthrow, which will also be successful. And who will in turn be overthrown again. That, at least, will put an end to it, if for no other reason than that literally everybody else is dead.
In this case, it's not too hard. Shakespeare likes giving you oppositions, like "winter" and "summer". Put the stress there, and the audience will follow. And you don't need to breathe at the end of the line; it can flow directly into the next one.
I get it if you feel like that question falls short of representing your own personal concept of happiness, but that question is the standard in positive psychology research for measuring self reported subjective well being, and hardly enough to say the report is "beset with methodological problems".
Titling it "The World Happiness Report Is a Sham" and calling it "beset with methodological problems", I would expect some more serious scientific malpractices, like data fabrication, calculation errors, sampling problems, p-hacking, etc., not "I think there are some problems with this variable".
The World Happiness Report can be traced back to the UN General Assembly Resolution 65/309, which was proposed by Bhutan. Therefore the intended definition of happiness in this context is similar to the one in Bhutan's Gross National Happiness index.
My immediate problem with this is the lower bound of responses in a given country would be determined by your perception of the safety nets available to you. Someone in a Scandinavian country where there are virtually no unsheltered homeless people probably doesn't index their zero to "dying of exposure on the sidewalk due to untreated mental illness," while an American who sees that regularly would.
I've always figured that this is in fact a big reason why the Nordic countries do so well on the survey: the average is lifted not by shiny happy people holding hands, but by the strong safety net ensuring that you can't fall into a pit of despair.
Seriously, though, I think it is because it has a good natural environment and strong extended families. But that is about to change with their new planned city.
The person in the Scandinavian country, when asked this question, will think "hmm, well I am not in America, so I will add 3 steps to my answer" and, och se där, up they go to the top of the World Ranking.
> bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life >>>for you<<<.
..and when asked this, I believe they consider how bad it can get for them in their country.
Based on my experience living and talking with people in Scandinavia and eastern europe.
Maybe I am not understanding this - do you think the average American regularly sees people dying of exposure on the sidewalk? Or what do you mean?
This bet kinda horrified some people, but I think I got my point across.
"Ecological fallacy! Ecological fallacy!," I screamed, flapping my arms pointlessly at my laptop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy#Individual_...
I'll spoil it: - Finland 38 - Norway 71 - Spain 137
(fun fact: USA is 31)
ranked by suicide. If you visit it, and the vibes and feelings you have don't match the statistics, the statistics are shit I'd say. And maybe cities and rural areas destroy this statistic. But what do I know (but the article agrees with me)
Then, the relative size of a bottom or top absolute threshold is highly meaningful. Even if it's a fraction of a percent, populations are huge and suicide rates are not rounding errors at all -- they're actually quite statistically significant.
And as macabre as it is, suicides are objective facts mostly unaffected by methodology, and unaffected by translation issues, cultural differences, etc.
This is why suicide rates are actually a powerful mental health statistic, just like height is a powerful physical health statistic, at the population level. There's obviously still a lot both of these metrics don't say, but the fact that they are highly objective makes them extremely valuable.
"The large variations in the systems and processes to define mortality causes imply there may be very different numbers of deaths that are registered with a specific cause. This creates a problem for cross-country comparisons of mortality by cause in general, and even more so for deaths of despair, and suicides in particular.
The person responsible for writing the cause of death on the death certificate may be different across countries. In some countries, the police are responsible, while in others a medical doctor, coroner, or judicial investigator takes on this role. Differences in doctors’ training, access to medical records, and autopsy requirements contribute to these discrepancies. The legal or judicial systems that decide causes of death also vary. For instance, in some countries suicide is illegal and is not listed as a classifiable cause of death, leading to underreporting or misclassification of suicides as accidents, violence, or deaths of “undetermined intent.”[25]
Data on suicides, even when reported, can be inaccurate due to social factors as well. In some countries, suicide might be taboo and highly stigmatised, so the families and friends of the person who committed suicide might decide to misreport or not disclose the mortality cause, causing underreporting of its incidence. In other societies, such as Northern Europe, there is less stigma attached to suicides, and alcohol and drug use."
https://www.worldhappiness.report/ed/2025/supporting-others-...
That's a pretty strong assumption, seems more likely that there's variation at the extremes than not. For example, if a small percentage of the population deals badly with extended nighttime in long winters, then it'll affect Finland's most-unhappy stats (and suicide rates) without meaning much for the average happiness.
I wouldn't be surprised if cultural differences are actually the largest factor that explains a country's suicide rate. Not easy to prove, of course, but I would be very careful drawing any conclusions from differences in suicide rates between countries with vastly different cultures.
I think you can also expect large differences in how countries report their suicide rates.
If people are happy, you have less suicides. I don't need a study for that.
Also, I Spain your view of Spain is tainted. I think very few people would choose an average city in Spain over e.g. Copenhagen where 20% of the Danish population live.
Also a genetic component.
If this is a dig at the largely pork/cabbage/potato-based diet of Northern Europe, you will be relieved to hear they don’t follow it.
Source: Am one.
In reality the average Spaniard isn't experience the majority of that, as those are perceptions that arose from the rose-tinted glasses of tourists. Most tourists don't know about the Eurozone crisis, the regional disparity, and the consolidation of Spain's economic growth engines to 1-2 cities.
Spain is a good developed country with a decent QoL as is reflected by it's HDI and developmental indicators (and the fact that it has outpaced historically richer and more developed Italy is a testament to that), but tourists almost always take a rose-tinted view whereas locals almost always take a negative view.
And I think this is the crux of the issue with how the "World Happiness Index" is used in American discourse - in the US almost no one vists Europe or other parts of the World for extended periods of time and most Americans lack familial or social ties in Europe. As such, idealized images of Europe ("a socialist paradise" or "white Christendom under siege") have taken hold in popular discourse and are used as proxies for the American culture war.
If you're a tourist, you get to experience only those parts. If you live there, you have to experience the other 99% of the life also and it's not so great.
In my case, the cure was traveling and living abroad for 7 years now, it made me realize that Spain is actually a great country.
I’d never want to live in perpetual summer. Seasons brings joy.
Even this is a typical myth that I often hear from Scandinavians. In fact different parts of Spain (or England or France) have also clearly demarcated seasons.
If you want to experience the joy of Autumn then the crisp, long days of an English Fall are incomparably more distinct than the unrelenting darkness that’s almost indistinguishable from Winter in Scandinavia, for instance. And when Spring comes to the valleys of the temperate regions of Spain, then the blossom and explosion of wild flowers is miraculous.
But like I said, from preschool onwards Scandinavians are indoctrinated with the belief that they live in the best of all possible worlds, and no amount of actual experience can ever dent that notion.
From the gently self-deprecating nature of your answer I’m guessing you’re British - and this is indeed the whole point of what I’m saying.
I genuinely and deeply miss this aspect of the English character which is totally lacking in Sweden - the websites called “shitLondon” or the insistence that English food is inferior to Italian or French cuisine or this repeated idea that it always rains (it doesn’t). That self-mockery simply doesn’t exist here, apart from when it’s some sort of humble-brag.
Having a culture that produces happier people in worse circumstances doesn't make those people less happy.
The question is whether stoicism in the face of what most people would categorize as suffering should be classified as “happiness”.
A 10 in Afghanistan is not the same as a 10 in Canada. Societies have different perception of “the best” based on each individuals experience, what society values and what they think is possible.
So while helpful in tracking happiness over time within the same country, it can’t be used to compare countries.
Personal safety, good health, financial stability, access to education, job security, low stress, and strong family and social ties do not necessarily make people smile or laugh. They create a sense of contentment. That is precisely where Scandinavian countries excel.
Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to ten at the top. Suppose we say that the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. If the top step is 10 and the bottom step is 0, on which step of the ladder do you feel you personally stand at the present time?
That said, note that both things mentioned in here will raise average happiness:
> But it turns out that the residents of the same Scandinavian countries that the press dutifully celebrates for their supposed happiness are especially likely to take antidepressants or even to commit suicide.
Saying you are unhappy is in a sense saying you need a better quality of life, or deserve more happiness, both of which are kind of taboo under the Law of Jante.
When I start deep questions about financial safety, the future and so on, just by asking I can be labelled as a pessimist. And I'm far from that.
I'm a fairly resolved and confident introvert, but I know many timid people that feel ashamed that they don't feel "happy" in these large group of people, that are extremely agitated and yelling around to grab some piece of attention they need.
And what is being shown in social media, documentaries and etc is just one pov.
In a warm climate you see people walking around feeling comfortable.
In a cold climate, the people you see are freezing.
You're right that once it gets over +30°C or so, you'll be miserable whatever you wear. But there is a large temperature range below that that is wonderful. The Bay Area is almost always in that zone.
The point about hot environments is true, but people are not anxious and your body rarely hurts. They are lazy and their minds blank out. It is often too hot to do anything except try to scam anxious northerners and move away from mosquitos.
Also, I think it's easy to misunderstand the Finns from the surface of us. We don't exhibit happiness, and we don't express happiness in a way that is easily observed. Finland ranks at the top of trust in other people, and being one of the least corrupt countries in the world. Those two metrics are a hint into how we Finns relate to other people. Also, it's difficult to get to know Finns, and for this reason it's difficult for outsiders to understand the Finns and the mentality.
On the anecdotal side, earlier this year I solo-traveled the US for 4 weeks, and out of those I got into deeper conversations, I was struck by how sad people were. That made me more convinced that I live a very happy life, in a happy place.
Edit: Some references: Weapons per capita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g... Corruption index: https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2024 Trust in others: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-where-people-trust-e...
So there is a huge incentive for religious societies to let a family member's suicide appear like an accident. Suicide rates are an extension of mental health disease rates and extremely hard to compare without correcting for many factors.
I would far rather live somewhere where people look unhappy but are actually pretty content with life than somewhere where people feel compelled to look happy even though they are actually feeling pretty miserable.
But then again I am an aging Scot so I'm biased. ;-)
Edit: I'm also just back from a visit to Finland.
The level of societal trust here is still very high. I say "still" because methinks Western media and social media serve to erode such things. My 0.01€, YMMV.
My point is, aggregating factors for happiness to find the best country is like aggregating people's favorite colors to find the best color. Each individual's needs and circumstances are unique, and what will make them happy will vary widely as those needs and circumstances vary.
Some interesting (suspect?) findings from the quoted 2023 paper: (2008 - 2017 data)
* Somaliland had the 4th least worries
* Russians were the 7th least angry
* Chinese were the 8th best rested
* Icelanders did great on every metric, but felt very tired (rank 190)
* Venezuelans smiled the 12th most (Panama, Paraguay, Costa Rica did even better)
* Laotians smile the 3rd most, but are also among the angriest (202) !!?
But then I moved to Denmark from that cold place and found myself very happy! Of course circumstances change and a single account means little but I definitely believe some societies lend themselves to greater happiness than others, even in the very developed world.
From "Be Careful Where You Smile: Culture Shapes Judgments of Intelligence and Honesty of Smiling Individuals"
Although numerous studies confirm that positive perceptions of smiling
individuals seem to be universal, anecdotal evidence suggests that in some
cultures the opposite may be true. For example, a well-known Russian proverb
says ‘Улыбкa, бeз пpичины - пpизнaк дypaчины’ (smiling with no reason is a
sign of stupidity). The Norwegian government humorously explains nuances of
Norwegian culture by indicating that when a stranger on the street smiles at
Norwegians, they may assume that the stranger is insane
Exactly. WHR is a wonderful tool to study how policy institutes and media work together to build a narrative over the years.
> “Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to ten at the top. Suppose we say that the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. If the top step is 10 and the bottom step is 0, on which step of the ladder do you feel you personally stand at the present time?”
One issue identified in the article that in some countries that really isn't taken to mean happiness, it's taken to mean "wealth". My take is simple that someone locked in a cage for the rest of their life without a chance to escape can still confidently put a 10 down. The cage may very well be golden, so it doesn't say much about their absolute happiness or suffering so to speak. Another situation is a person who sees more achievable opportunity - "if I can do x, y, z, I'll be higher on the ladder". Then they'd report themselves low, because they see a path to reach higher. But in the report they'll just look like the saddest person ever.
There are rich, healthy, popular people who feel awful. They might feel like a failure because they are constantly comparing themselves with more successful people (or at least believe all the wonderful posts on social media). They might immerse themselves in negative thoughts about the world and their own immediate surroundings.
But if you are always counting your blessings and trying to serve people who are less fortunate; you might realize that 'It's a Wonderful Life'.
Also, it links to a report on why Nordic countries tend to perform so well on life evaluation indicators: “ the most prominent explanations include factors related to the quality of institutions, such as reliable and extensive welfare benefits, low corruption, and well-functioning democracy and state institutions. Furthermore, Nordic citizens experience a high sense of autonomy and freedom, as well as high levels of social trust towards each other, which play an important role in determining life satisfaction. On the other hand, we show that a few popular explanations for Nordic happiness such as the small population and homogeneity of the Nordic countries, and a few counterarguments against Nordic happiness such as the cold weather and the suicide rates, actually don’t seem to have much to do with Nordic happiness.”
[1] https://open.substack.com/pub/yaschamounk/p/the-world-happin...
https://www.worldhappiness.report/ed/2025/caring-and-sharing...
https://www.worldhappiness.report/ed/2025/supporting-others-...
U.S. hits new low in World Happiness Report - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45378896 - Sept 2025 (277 comments)
U.S. No Longer Ranks Among 20 Happiest Countries - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39763595 - March 2024 (92 comments)
The Finnish Secret to Happiness? Knowing When You Have Enough - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35411641 - April 2023 (19 comments)
World Happiness Report 2023 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35230812 - March 2023 (2 comments)
World Happiness Report, 2019 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19615776 - April 2019 (60 comments)
Why Denmark dominates the World Happiness Report rankings year after year - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16720551 - March 2018 (3 comments)
Happiness report: Norway is the happiest place on earth - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13913145 - March 2017 (158 comments)
World Happiness Report 2015 [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10793969 - Dec 2015 (22 comments)
Denmark 'happiest' country in the world - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=234018 - July 2008 (1 comment)
---
Bonus highlight: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5152494 (Feb 2013)
It is all part of this broader wave of newspeak. If you can quite literally redefine happiness, you can redefine anything. Nothing has meaning anymore. You will live alone, you will consume antidepressants, you will be protected from the sunlight, you will not smile, you will not laugh, and you will be happy.
The saddest people I've seen were in the richest countries, like the U.S. and Germany. Yes, the homeless population, I've met them too - but more surprisingly, the wealthy ruling class. They've conquered the land, covered it with concrete and asphalt, colonized their own public, produce and broadcast mass media entertainment, and command the largest militaries. Yet their culture has clearly devolved and degenerated, propped up by drugs, cosmetic surgery, nice clothes, nice houses, nice cars. But it's not enough to fill that emptiness inside.
It's a simplification of course, there are many very miserable poor people, that's the base majority of humanity, on whom the pyramid of modern civilization is built. But I have no respect for those at the top, the self-styled kings of today. They're deeply unhappy people who are not fit to lead the world, much less themselves.
What always surprises me is that a lot of the most comfortably well off people in the US, and a lesser extend the UK, seem to live in a state of perennial fear.
10, I'm living my best possible life. It's conceivable that my "best possible life" may not be as happy as the lifes of other people, but I have achieved the maximum that's possible for me.
Any other "possible life" would require some combination of different genes, being in a different place and living at a different time.
It varies wildly by culture, but we're all conditioned somewhat to falsely report our feelings. I don't expect an honest answer if I greet someone with "How are you doing?".
How do you decide what to eat when you are out with friends if asking them for their opinion is out?
Or do you ask but then spend all night afterwards worrying that maybe they lied and you should have gone for tacos instead?
Seems exhausting, why not trust people a little?
I'm afraid struggles with dishonesty about what they want to eat is a somewhat common relationship problem: https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/sydaj0/w...
I suspect there may be a pattern, every time I hear on the radio that it's "World $x Day" I'm afraid I start wondering who's actually behind that specific press release and/or what funding and incentives are really in play...
Finland and Iceland are not in Scandinavia. Iceland is in fact an island quite far removed from the peninsula.
Finland is not on the Scandinavian Peninsula, but it is physically contiguous with Sweden and Norway and deeply integrated into the same northern European ecological, economic, and transport space. If peninsulas are the criterion, then Denmark is already a special pleading exception.
Finland is officially bilingual, Swedish is a national language, and Swedish is historically entrenched in Finnish administration, law, and elites. Meanwhile Finnish is spoken by a large minority in Sweden. So language does not draw a clean boundary.
Lutheranism dominates across Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Iceland.
Finnish culture is distinct in some ways, but so is Icelandic relative to Denmark, and Norwegian relative to Swedish. Distinctiveness exists inside the supposed core as much as between core and periphery.
Finland was part of the Swedish realm for centuries, was governed through the same institutions, and emerged into modernity shaped by the same legal and administrative traditions.
I don't know whether this attitude still prevails tho.
Aren't all of these types of things (unhappiest day of the year, best day to be born on, age that we're happiest etc) clearly pseudo-scientific/scientistic babble - and brands can then just use them to sell the Scandi (or whatever) lifestyle. Nobody who believes this is going to be swayed by your anaylsis. :)
In such an environment it's vital to know if the methodology for measuring happiness is good or bunk.
But that just means the Cantril ladder is a good outcome variable — the WHR is in fact profoundly flawed, but the important flaws are in the predictors they use to “explain” (their word) the outcomes. They’re hand-picked, they’re over a decade old which is well before the majority of their own data was collected, they’re not even consistent with the report itself, and when they talk about them in public (I was at the 2025 launch party), they don’t even take them seriously, as if they know it’s not meaningful — and yet they continue to be the single largest data product of the report, every single year.
And this is critical. Who’s #1 is always in the headlines but Why is far more important than Rank. We don’t really care who has the best life — we want to know how we can get a better life. Yet most of the predictable conversation — here, but also literally on stage at Gallup — is just total speculation about the real answer, while sitting in front of 20 years of data. This is insane.
Which is why I’ve spent three years building a better model, starting from a base of 180x more variables, and using objective methods of computational variable selection instead of just deciding what I think should make people happy — because that’s self-evidently just inexcusably bad science. The result is measurably more accurate than the WHR. White paper is here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5655570
Tl:dr; Basic Needs, (Local and Global) Social Support, and (Local and Global) Self-Determination describe almost all of the findings, but many of the specific variables that emerge as the strongest predictors are things like LGBTQ+ social acceptance, women in white collar jobs, and meaningful, democratically accessible political power. Which just aren’t in the WHR model. The lessons to take, and the direction it points, are just in a profoundly different direction.
This is the real flaw of the WHR — it doesn’t actually show us how to make the world better.
Footnote: The Cantril ladder has now been used for literally 60 years, and new major studies continue to choose it as their outcome measure, because 60 years of research have demonstrated it is stable, meaningful, intuitive, and consistently understood across languages, cultures, and geographies. Plus it’s 1. self-reported, 2. all-encompassing, 3. single-scale, and 4. quantitative, all of which are unavoidable properties of a usable outcome, so even if the wording changes somewhat, any worthwhile question is going to look, basically, like it. And yes the tangled use of “happiness” vs “satisfaction” is stupid, misleading, and inconsistent, but when you just accept that one is the correct version and one is the PR version, you eventually get over it.
I read this critique when it came out, although you can really stop at the part where he claims that it's flawed because it's self-reported. This just totally, fundamentally, misses the point, and value, of the study. Do you think you should decide how good your life is? Or do you think I should decide how good your life is? Mounk appears to think he should be the one deciding (which is what you’re doing when you manufacture an “objective” version, rather than believing the provided answer). This is the deeper, and fatal, problem with his complaints. (The critique of the Ladder as being biased towards fame and fortune sounds important, until you actually model satisfaction and find that those variables just aren’t the dominant predictors.)
But that just means the Cantril ladder is a good outcome variable — the WHR is in fact profoundly flawed, but the important flaws are in the predictors they use to “explain” (their word) the outcomes. They’re hand-picked, they’re over a decade old which is well before the majority of their own data was collected, they’re not even consistent with the report itself, and when they talk about them in public (I was at the 2025 launch party), they don’t even take them seriously, as if they know it’s not meaningful — and yet they continue to be the single largest data product of the report, every single year.
And this is critical. Who’s #1 is always in the headlines but Why is far more important than Rank. We don’t really care who has the best life — we want to know how we can get a better life. Yet most of the predictable conversation — here, but also literally on stage at Gallup — is just total speculation about the real answer, while sitting in front of over 20 years of data. This is insane.
Which is why I’ve spent three years building a better model, starting from a base of 180x more variables, and using error-driven methods of computational variable selection instead of just deciding what I think should make people happy — because that’s self-evidently just inexcusably bad science. The result is measurably more accurate than the WHR. White paper is here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5655570
Tl:dr; Basic Needs, (Local and Global) Social Support, and (Local and Global) Self-Determination describe almost all of the findings, but many of the specific variables that emerge as the strongest predictors are things like LGBTQ+ social acceptance, women in white collar jobs, and meaningful, democratically accessible political power. Which just aren’t in the WHR model. The lessons to take, and the direction it points, are just in a profoundly different direction.
This is the real flaw of the WHR — it doesn’t actually show us how to make the world better.
Footnote, based on the conversation: The Cantril ladder has now been used for literally 60 years, and new major studies continue to choose it as their outcome measure, because 60 years of research have demonstrated it is stable, meaningful, intuitive, and consistently understood across languages, cultures, and geographies. Plus it’s 1. self-reported, 2. all-encompassing, 3. single-scale, and 4. quantitative, all of which are unavoidable properties of a usable outcome, so even if the wording changes somewhat, any worthwhile question is going to look, basically, like it. And yes the tangled use of “happiness” vs “satisfaction” is stupid, misleading, and inconsistent, but when you just accept that one is the correct version and one is the PR version, you eventually get over it.
The good news is that we don't need a perfect happiness report to think about the things various countries are either doing very well or very poorly and how our own lives might be changed if the place where we live did things differently. The World Happiness Reports gets attention year after year because it prompts that kind of thinking and there is value in that.