I was assigned readings from Hackett's Hellenistic Philosophy anthology, which mostly places Senecan extracts in its epicureanism section. And actually those extracts are rather brief.
If you just need to illustrate general Stoic themes, why Seneca in particular?
Alesina et al., "Inequality and Happiness: Are Europeans and Americans Different?" NBER Working Paper No. 8198
Arguing that a sense of unhappiness relating to inequality is tied to an expectation of social mobility, and Europeans expect less of that than Americans do.
To be a very large man with a very small penis would be funny. Labs is a very large man, but cannot have a very small penis, because while Labs is funny, he is not that funny.
Possible humor you might find in that joke: 1) picturing Labs w/ cock 2) picturing Labs w/ v. small cock 3) put-down of Labs's limited humorousness 4) choosing "modest" as the best likely description of the size of Labs's cock which 4a) could be funny insofar as it subtly excluded gigantic and 4a1) "modest" cocks are just funny.
Weiner, I think he meant "honest" in the sense that the sweat of one's brow is honest. Basically, anything that you get from your blog is an ill-gotten gain.
claim that inequality in distribution lowers subjective well-being
The claim sounds a bit odd, if the inequality is meant to constitute a harm and to concern the distribution of benefits and harms (which are definitionally tied to well-being). For then the harm of inequality (to whom? the worse-off?) would have already to be included in the calculations, which would create a weird loop. Perhaps the claim you mean concerns possible instrumental effects of inequality (or, alternatively, the belief that there is inequality, or that one is worse off, or the like)? My students often make a similar claim about the effects that promoting equality has on the better-off (resentment towards welfare free-riders, etc.). For a short discussion of such empirical instrumental claims and their relevance, look e.g. at Shelly Kagan's textbook Normative Ethics.
Cass Sunstein has written on item #2. He is fairly tall, though not immoderately so, though the story goes that his wang is immoderately sized, and contains multitudes.
He fidgeted with it in class, and walked everywhere with a book held to his face, and also lived for awhile in his office, where his dog still lives.
Obviously nobody wants to talk about this but me, but anyway: the answer to FL's question is "no, there is no established relationship between inequality and unhappiness." There is an established relationship between being rich and being happy. This could conceivably raise some interesting questions for a class.
Sorry to interrupt; please, go about your, er, business.
(Also, I didn't intend to hijack the thread; it just didn't seem like a topic that needed discussion: the people who had answers would leave them and the rest of us would talk about Labs's cock.)
22: that is wrong. There is lots of writing on the subject. One argument goes that there isn't much correlation between absolute wealth and happiness, but there is a correlation between relative wealth and happiness. Where there is lots of wealth inequality in a given country, there are lots of people with low relative wealth (even if they are decently well-off, compared to the rest of the world) and thus, lots of unhappiness.
You could argue that unhappiness is off-set by the corresponding happiness of those on top of hte ladder. There is a response to that argument, but I dunno it off-hand.
Let's say, it's arguable. When I said there's no established relationship, I meant that results vary. There is an established relationship between wealth and happiness. To quote from Richard Easterlin in 2001, "As far as I am aware, in every representative national survey ever done a significant positive bivariate relationship between happiness and income has been found...." He would not say the same of happiness and inequality.
Is the work by Richard Wilkinson of Sussex, about how income inequality correlates to poor health, part of what you're thinking about re: inequality? Some relevant stuff seems to be here, and there's a relevant exchange here, in which we note that that toadlicker Wilkinson can't come up with a working URL. (Note: I have no reason to think that Wilkinson licks toads or indulges in any other kind of hallucinogen, I just like the epithet. And the only thing I have against Wilkinson is that he made me work for the URL. Though really I should blame Labs. Labs, you toadlicker!)
I'm not denying it, I'm saying it's not everywhere and always true. In my limited experience. And I'm even less citable than the hedgehog, so I should probably shut up and let it weigh in.
And I'm not trying out a new nickname. Sometimes one types faster than one's browser can autocomplete.
Going to the Savage Minds blog, I searched "inequality sen" and found the article on "Commodity Fetishism" I remembered from months ago. There are several other articles.
Will Wilkinson is working very hard to disprove the thesis, or prove it doesn't matter, with redefinitions of "happiness" and "public good"
We short people with huge cocks are underepresented here.
And isn't Seneca the one who opened his veins and invited his friends over to watch? Tho I don't know if that is stoic or epicurean. Or proto-blogging.
Maybe I'm missing something. Don't you first need to separate out whether you're talking about inequality of wealth as a sort of static state, or inequality as a function of accrual over time? I'm thinking of the following cases:
(1) Vast initial disparity, but everyone's income grows at the same % clip;
(2) Who cares about the initial state, some people get much richer over time (and it's always the same people) and others get continually less return.
I could see those two situations having different effects on happiness.
Additional factors in inequality-happiness are a.) the presumption of equal opportunity and b.) a widespread consensus that success (which at the root is basically material success, though people always fudge) is the most important thing. In such a case, anyone who is materially lacking is not only poor but a failure and loser.
In Franks' Kansas book and elsewhere, one thing that came out is that **some** rural Moral Majority types are often willing to accept a relatively low level of consumption. This works best if the whole community is that way, which with geographical isolation can be true.
Others MMs, though, Prosperity Theology types, take their wealth as God's blessing and can be totally insufferable.
I don't know much about Seneca, expect that all Roman philosophy is horribly derivative anyway.
As far as equality, I'm assuming you mean wealth and something like either a) where relative difference in income means more to a person's happiness rather than an absolute difference (so it makes sense to talk of poor people in NYC even though they may be better off than the middle class in other places or at other times) or b) considering two possible worlds, A and B, each with an identical amount of utility. In A, most individuals have a high amount of utility, except for (say) 10%, whose quality of life is very low. In B, everyone has the same, middling amount of utility -- everyone is reasonably well off. This is kind of Larry Temkin's stuff.
Apparently leaving for a phone call mid post makes me more incoherent than usual.
b) should include something about all other things being equal, we're intuitively drawn to Equal World B, and there's some nifty paradoxes and questions you can derive from this set of considerations.
If you crack a cup, it is merely a cup and breakable thing.. Yeah, and if your wife dies, she's a dying thing, so why mourn?
It's..... in the Encheiridion (Epictetus) somewhere. That's as far as I can help, memory being decent on quotes and lousy on the index. Maybe I'll go look for my copy of the text. A pleasant evening diversion.
In the case of everything attractive or useful or that you are fond of, remember to say just what sort of thing it is, beginning with the least little things.
If you are fond of a jug, say "I am fond of a jug!" For then when it is broken you will not be upset. If you kiss your child or your wife, say that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be upset.
I'm horrified. On the other hand, if I had read the thing, I would probably have walked around saying "I am fond of big jugs" until someone punched me.
An (internally) grossly unequal society is highly likely to be a dysfunctional society, and an unhappy society. See, among many others, Robert J. Waldmann (1992), "Income Distribution and Infant Morality," Quarterly Journal of Economics 107:4, pp. 1283-1302: "Comparing two countries in which the poor have equal real incomes, the one in which the rich are wealthier is likely to have a higher infant mortality rate. This anomalous result does not appear to spring from measurement error in estimating the income of the poor, and the association between high infant mortality and income inequality is still present after controlling for other factors such as education, medical personnel, and fertility. The positive association of infant mortality and the income of the rich suggests that measured real incomes may be a poor measure of social welfare.
I was assigned readings from here in school. I can't remember what sections we read, but I remember them being good :)
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 3:38 PM
I was assigned readings from Hackett's Hellenistic Philosophy anthology, which mostly places Senecan extracts in its epicureanism section. And actually those extracts are rather brief.
If you just need to illustrate general Stoic themes, why Seneca in particular?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 3:44 PM
I was thinking, just recently, that your cock must be at least a modest size, because you're gigantic, and you're not that funny.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 3:47 PM
Alesina et al., "Inequality and Happiness: Are Europeans and Americans Different?" NBER Working Paper No. 8198
Arguing that a sense of unhappiness relating to inequality is tied to an expectation of social mobility, and Europeans expect less of that than Americans do.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 3:49 PM
So height is positively correlated with cock size, and funniness negatively?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 3:50 PM
Near Cuyahoga Falls, according to Chrissie Hynde.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 3:51 PM
I remember when you were smart, even if you don't, Ben.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 3:52 PM
Here I thought we were talking about happiness.
Posted by slol | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 3:53 PM
I guess some women really don't care about size.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 3:54 PM
I'm too stupid now to remember when I was smart.
Can you ... explain the joke?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 3:57 PM
To be a very large man with a very small penis would be funny. Labs is a very large man, but cannot have a very small penis, because while Labs is funny, he is not that funny.
Possible humor you might find in that joke: 1) picturing Labs w/ cock 2) picturing Labs w/ v. small cock 3) put-down of Labs's limited humorousness 4) choosing "modest" as the best likely description of the size of Labs's cock which 4a) could be funny insofar as it subtly excluded gigantic and 4a1) "modest" cocks are just funny.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:02 PM
Oddly enough, my post was above-average in relevance.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:03 PM
I would have picked the one in New York.
Posted by slol | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:06 PM
I don't think that this is at all dishonest. When you're drawing up a syllabus, it makes sense to ask experts.
I do, however, think, as a matter of academic integrity, that the syllabus ought to acknowledge Hedgical Trevor.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:07 PM
Ah. Ogged, your jokes really suck, you know that?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:08 PM
Weiner, I think he meant "honest" in the sense that the sweat of one's brow is honest. Basically, anything that you get from your blog is an ill-gotten gain.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:09 PM
You know, theft does have advantages over honest toil.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:16 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:17 PM
I concede that point, Labs.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:19 PM
Damn, no time for cock jokes!
claim that inequality in distribution lowers subjective well-being
The claim sounds a bit odd, if the inequality is meant to constitute a harm and to concern the distribution of benefits and harms (which are definitionally tied to well-being). For then the harm of inequality (to whom? the worse-off?) would have already to be included in the calculations, which would create a weird loop. Perhaps the claim you mean concerns possible instrumental effects of inequality (or, alternatively, the belief that there is inequality, or that one is worse off, or the like)? My students often make a similar claim about the effects that promoting equality has on the better-off (resentment towards welfare free-riders, etc.). For a short discussion of such empirical instrumental claims and their relevance, look e.g. at Shelly Kagan's textbook Normative Ethics.
Posted by pekka | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:36 PM
Cass Sunstein has written on item #2. He is fairly tall, though not immoderately so, though the story goes that his wang is immoderately sized, and contains multitudes.
He fidgeted with it in class, and walked everywhere with a book held to his face, and also lived for awhile in his office, where his dog still lives.
A marvellous man.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:37 PM
Obviously nobody wants to talk about this but me, but anyway: the answer to FL's question is "no, there is no established relationship between inequality and unhappiness." There is an established relationship between being rich and being happy. This could conceivably raise some interesting questions for a class.
Sorry to interrupt; please, go about your, er, business.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:37 PM
I assumed Labs meant inequality in the distribution of wealth.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:38 PM
So, some relevant comments came in while I was typing. Sorry about that.
text, am I being unforgivably naïve if I insist on asking, you're not serious about Cass Sunstein, are you?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:39 PM
(Also, I didn't intend to hijack the thread; it just didn't seem like a topic that needed discussion: the people who had answers would leave them and the rest of us would talk about Labs's cock.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:39 PM
I assumed Labs meant inequality in the distribution of wealth.
Yes, that's what I meant, too.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:40 PM
22: that is wrong. There is lots of writing on the subject. One argument goes that there isn't much correlation between absolute wealth and happiness, but there is a correlation between relative wealth and happiness. Where there is lots of wealth inequality in a given country, there are lots of people with low relative wealth (even if they are decently well-off, compared to the rest of the world) and thus, lots of unhappiness.
You could argue that unhappiness is off-set by the corresponding happiness of those on top of hte ladder. There is a response to that argument, but I dunno it off-hand.
And there's lots of other stuff too.
so there.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:43 PM
serious in what manner?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:44 PM
that is, which parts of my story are to be understood as unserious? Not the big cock parts, for sure.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:44 PM
only the scholarly parts are unserious.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:46 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:49 PM
that is wrong
Let's say, it's arguable. When I said there's no established relationship, I meant that results vary. There is an established relationship between wealth and happiness. To quote from Richard Easterlin in 2001, "As far as I am aware, in every representative national survey ever done a significant positive bivariate relationship between happiness and income has been found...." He would not say the same of happiness and inequality.
Posted by slol | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:49 PM
Is the work by Richard Wilkinson of Sussex, about how income inequality correlates to poor health, part of what you're thinking about re: inequality? Some relevant stuff seems to be here, and there's a relevant exchange here, in which we note that that toadlicker Wilkinson can't come up with a working URL. (Note: I have no reason to think that Wilkinson licks toads or indulges in any other kind of hallucinogen, I just like the epithet. And the only thing I have against Wilkinson is that he made me work for the URL. Though really I should blame Labs. Labs, you toadlicker!)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:50 PM
I'm not denying it, I'm saying it's not everywhere and always true. In my limited experience. And I'm even less citable than the hedgehog, so I should probably shut up and let it weigh in.
And I'm not trying out a new nickname. Sometimes one types faster than one's browser can autocomplete.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:51 PM
lived in his office?
Posted by slol | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:51 PM
See?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 4:52 PM
FL,
Jokes involving one's own huge dong aren't good form, and nor is belittling others', so I don't have much left to go on with.
Posted by pekka | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 5:00 PM
Jokes involving one's own huge dong aren't good form, and nor is belittling others
Be sure you're wearing tweed when you say that.
Have I mentioned the time I clubbed a baby seal to death with my huge dong? No? Some other time, then.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 5:02 PM
Going to the Savage Minds blog, I searched "inequality sen" and found the article on "Commodity Fetishism" I remembered from months ago. There are several other articles.
Will Wilkinson is working very hard to disprove the thesis, or prove it doesn't matter, with redefinitions of "happiness" and "public good"
We short people with huge cocks are underepresented here.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 5:47 PM
And isn't Seneca the one who opened his veins and invited his friends over to watch? Tho I don't know if that is stoic or epicurean. Or proto-blogging.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 5:52 PM
Seneca, Utica, and Oneida -- weren't they the Three Kings or something like that?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 5:57 PM
And then there's these Seneca.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 6:04 PM
Maybe I'm missing something. Don't you first need to separate out whether you're talking about inequality of wealth as a sort of static state, or inequality as a function of accrual over time? I'm thinking of the following cases:
(1) Vast initial disparity, but everyone's income grows at the same % clip;
(2) Who cares about the initial state, some people get much richer over time (and it's always the same people) and others get continually less return.
I could see those two situations having different effects on happiness.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 6:08 PM
Additional factors in inequality-happiness are a.) the presumption of equal opportunity and b.) a widespread consensus that success (which at the root is basically material success, though people always fudge) is the most important thing. In such a case, anyone who is materially lacking is not only poor but a failure and loser.
In Franks' Kansas book and elsewhere, one thing that came out is that **some** rural Moral Majority types are often willing to accept a relatively low level of consumption. This works best if the whole community is that way, which with geographical isolation can be true.
Others MMs, though, Prosperity Theology types, take their wealth as God's blessing and can be totally insufferable.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 6:21 PM
I don't know much about Seneca, expect that all Roman philosophy is horribly derivative anyway.
As far as equality, I'm assuming you mean wealth and something like either a) where relative difference in income means more to a person's happiness rather than an absolute difference (so it makes sense to talk of poor people in NYC even though they may be better off than the middle class in other places or at other times) or b) considering two possible worlds, A and B, each with an identical amount of utility. In A, most individuals have a high amount of utility, except for (say) 10%, whose quality of life is very low. In B, everyone has the same, middling amount of utility -- everyone is reasonably well off. This is kind of Larry Temkin's stuff.
Or maybe you mean distributive justice questions.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 6:38 PM
Apparently leaving for a phone call mid post makes me more incoherent than usual.
b) should include something about all other things being equal, we're intuitively drawn to Equal World B, and there's some nifty paradoxes and questions you can derive from this set of considerations.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 6:40 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 9:35 PM
Once they see how you get up each day and participate in civic life to the fullest despite the smallness of your cock, they will understand stoicism.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 9:39 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 9:42 PM
Jesus, Labs will do anything to get the better of an argument.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 9:50 PM
Some things are up to us; some things are not.
Clearly this applies to cocks.
If you break a vase, say, "It is merely a vase, and transient". If you break your cock....
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 10:04 PM
If you break a vase, say, "It is merely a vase, and transient". If you break your cock....
I was just looking through my hellenistic philosophy thing for that. It has the worst fucking index ever. You know, with your dead wife and shit.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 10:05 PM
I curious about what you find, Labs, so if there is a way to post some the information that you find, that would be great.
Not if you risk de-cloaking, though.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 10:35 PM
If you crack a cup, it is merely a cup and breakable thing.. Yeah, and if your wife dies, she's a dying thing, so why mourn?
It's..... in the Encheiridion (Epictetus) somewhere. That's as far as I can help, memory being decent on quotes and lousy on the index. Maybe I'll go look for my copy of the text. A pleasant evening diversion.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 10:36 PM
3. of the White translation of the Encheiridion:
In the case of everything attractive or useful or that you are fond of, remember to say just what sort of thing it is, beginning with the least little things.
If you are fond of a jug, say "I am fond of a jug!" For then when it is broken you will not be upset. If you kiss your child or your wife, say that you are kissing a human being; for when it dies you will not be upset.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 10:43 PM
Ha! For a while in high school, "I am fond of a jug" was guaranteed to crack us up as soon as anyone said it, in any context.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-11-05 10:46 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 08-12-05 7:42 AM
I'm afraid we did, Labs. Upon reflection, I've probably never had sex.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 08-12-05 7:50 AM
I'm horrified. On the other hand, if I had read the thing, I would probably have walked around saying "I am fond of big jugs" until someone punched me.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 08-12-05 8:05 AM
An (internally) grossly unequal society is highly likely to be a dysfunctional society, and an unhappy society. See, among many others, Robert J. Waldmann (1992), "Income Distribution and Infant Morality," Quarterly Journal of Economics 107:4, pp. 1283-1302: "Comparing two countries in which the poor have equal real incomes, the one in which the rich are wealthier is likely to have a higher infant mortality rate. This anomalous result does not appear to spring from measurement error in estimating the income of the poor, and the association between high infant mortality and income inequality is still present after controlling for other factors such as education, medical personnel, and fertility. The positive association of infant mortality and the income of the rich suggests that measured real incomes may be a poor measure of social welfare.
Posted by Brad DeLong | Link to this comment | 08-14-05 11:58 AM