As noted above, we found several aspects to be important in our study that are not commonly included in SWB surveys, such as those related to family, values, and security. The inclusion of these factors in future research is therefore important. However, due to constrained resources, our survey only accomplishes a first-pass demonstration of feasibility.
I’m still not convinced that we necessarily need something like happiness/well-being indeces (especially considering how untruthful people tend to answer surveys), but this sounds like a more nuanced and interesting way to do it. I’m not sure if it will work as it seems to rely on surveys even more. Complicated. Looking forward to more though. (But: Why do you need five people to write an article like that?)
2) vox.com: Watch Jimmy Fallon realize he once blew a chance to date Nicole Kidman
She should’ve asked him to play some Mario Cart! Guess, she wasn’t that interested. Hah.
There is no middle ground, no soft compromise available to keep everyone happy
I’d also link the NYT-Article, but P A Y W A L L E D
Wir sollten dabei aber eine wichtige Tatsache nicht verkennen: wir und unsere Werte waren gar nicht das vorrangige Ziel dieses Anschlags.
Weiß nicht. Man kann sicher beide Ziele gleichzeitig verfolgen. Und die “Zerstörung” unsere Werte bleibt weiterhin das Endziel.
We often talk about secularism as if it is an obvious principle that can be easily applied to all nations, governments, and religions. It is anything but. Attempts by Westerners to impose the ideals of secularism on Muslim immigrants have only exposed the fact that restrictions on religion cannot be applied with a broad brush.
Regt zum Nachdenken an. Würde dem aber (noch) nicht zustimmen. Reminds me of Ernst Bloch: “Only an atheist can be a good Christian; only a Christian can be a good atheist.” Wouldn’t be surprised if Dougherty had read Bloch in the past.
DD: China was the only post-2008 actor that could have announced an alternative to the Washington Consensus and have gotten any traction with it, but in the end Beijing acted like a responsible stakeholder.
Strangely, “austerity” doesn’t seem to play a big part in the interview. Weird choice of words and it’s too short (but the part about China is interesting).
What the solution to this relatively small and somewhat unimportant imperfect information game indicates is that the computers are soon going to be better than you and I at the “human” capabilities of threat, bluff and deception.