u.s. rep. brian baird helped psychologists see the link between jail and the NSF and this year's APA convention in DC:

I think it's incumbent on those of use who do research to always ask ourselves, "Is this research so valuable that I would put a fellow citizen in jail if they chose not to fund it?" That's a pretty high standard, but that's the standard in my judgment. Because that's how you are getting your money. And the numbers of research psychologists who actually ask themselves that question, in that fashion, I think is very, very small.

this quote seems more fitting at an objectivist center meeting than a convention for researchers whose primary funding is from their neighbor's forced hand. although rep. baird probably intended only to stress the importance of applicable scholarship, i wonder if anyone in the audience stopped to ask themselves this question in earnest. perhaps there are some who would say yes, and perhaps for some we could argue the answer is justified. i can't think of too many, though. i think sometimes the NSF even wonders.

ed diener, positive psychologist and author of books such as culture and subjective well-being, has been a thoughtful proponent of well-being-centric public policy. he spoke at the american psychological convention this year in DC on how too much happiness may actually hamper learning about our emotions, which may have a negative impact on long-term well-being:

you want a functioning gas gauge - you don't want a gas gauge stuck on full.

the terms happiness and well-being are often conflated in popular understanding of the well-being literature, and even sometimes in the academic literature. as this quote indicates, there are important differences between the two concepts, both academically and in policy implications.

Labels: well being