離教者之家

【轉載】哪個國家的人最快樂

1 [2] [3] >>
抽刀斷水 07/3/27 15:43
哪個國家的人最快樂Submitted by roger 2006-12-11 心理譯作 | 評論(10)

世界上哪個國家的人最快樂?答案不是美國。據一項網絡國際調查(MTVNI)顯示,印度人是所有國家中的人最快樂的,而日本人則是最痛苦的。全球16至34歲的人中,只有43%的人感覺他們生活快樂。在發展中國家,同年齡段的人則對未來的美好生活充滿期待,中國高達84%。發達國家的人對全球化表示出過度悲觀,95%的年輕德國人認為這是毀滅他們的文化,而發展中國家的人更願意接受全球化並且對他們的經濟未來持樂觀態度,對他們的民族也更感到自豪。

一項調查顯示,發展中國家的青年人比起他們那些生活在發達國家的同齡人的對生活感覺至少快樂兩倍。

印度人是所有國家中最快樂的,而日本則是最痛苦的。

一個覆蓋了來自14個國家的5400名年輕人MTV網絡國際調查(MTVNI)顯示,全球的16至34歲的人中只有43%的人感覺他們生活快樂。

NTVNI說這個數字是被來自發達國家的年輕人拉低的。來自英國和美國的只有少於30%的年輕人說他們的覺得生活快樂。

在日本只有8%說他們很快樂。

這些發達社會的人的不快樂因素包括缺乏樂觀精神,過度投入工作和成就的壓力。

在發展中國家,他們的同年齡組的人大部分期望將來的生活會更愉快,中國最高達到84%。

「這些在發展中國家更高興的年輕人同時也是最虔誠的。」調查說。

這個MTVNI歷時6個月完成,並且得到了基於他們對於安全,適應社會和如何看待他們未來的認知,比較年輕人感覺的「幸福索引」。

來自阿根廷和南非的年輕人在「他們有多高興」的列表中處理頂端,達到75%.

這全部的「幸福索引」更多的是富裕和窮困的混合。印度第一,接下來是瑞士和巴西。

「在發展中國家,經濟高速增長,所以理論上你應該看到的是樂觀和積極的感覺。」MTVNI的主席Bill Roedy告訴路透社。

發達國家對全球化表示過度的悲觀,95%的年輕德國人認為這是毀滅他們的文化,而發展中國家的人更願意接受全球化並且對他們的經濟未來持樂觀態度,對他們的民族也更感到自豪。

MTVNI說他們注意的一個傾向是年輕人有權使用大眾傳媒會讓他們失去安全感,然而他們又沒有認知技術來解釋真正的危險。

在英國,80%的16歲至34歲的人說他們害怕恐怖活動就像害怕患癌症一樣,然而後者卻是更可能傷害他們的。

參加調查的14個國家分別是阿根廷,巴西,中國,丹麥,法國,德國,印度,印度尼西亞,日本,墨西哥,南非,瑞士,英國和美國。

http://www.psytopic.com/mag/post/887.html
抽刀斷水 07/3/27 15:52
鄭秀文年前遊歷印度,也感受到當地人的快樂。她說:印度人就算只得到一個蘋果,也很快樂。

日前見過一名版友,他也剛遊印度,他告訴我印度人的家庭觀念很重,有甚麼都會拿回家一起分享。

快樂是否就是在不足之中的滿足?抑或擁有一個以家為本的思想?

印度,四大文明古國之一,其餘的是中國、埃及、巴比倫(伊拉克?)。她們究竟和其他國家有何分別?
Paul 07/3/27 16:11
我認為是信仰及價值觀影響著人的樂觀~
dye 07/3/27 16:19
<<BBC>> Dye's comment

What makes us happy?

According to psychologist Professor Ed Diener there is no one key to happiness but a set of ingredients that are vital.

First, family and friends are crucial - the wider and deeper the relationships with those around you the better. Family based India.  

It is even suggested that friendship can ward off germs. Our brains control many of the mechanisms in our bodies which are responsible for disease.

Just as stress can trigger ill health, it is thought that friendship and happiness can have a protective effect.

According to happiness research, friendship has a much bigger effect on average on happiness than a typical person's income itself.

One economist, Professor Oswald at Warwick University, has a formula to work out how much extra cash we would need to make up for not having friends.

The answer is £50,000.

Marriage also seems to be very important. According to research the effect of marriage adds an average seven years to the life of a man and something like four for a woman. Family based India.

The second vital ingredient is having meaning in life, a belief in something bigger than yourself - from religion, spirituality or a philosophy of life.  Philosophical Hinduism.

The third element is having goals embedded in your long term values that you're working for, but also that you find enjoyable. Rising GDP. An observed effect since 1600 by Adam Smith (see Wealth of Nation)  Smith also predicted a high suicide rate when GDP stop rising, like Hong Kong in last few year.

Psychologists argue that we need to find fulfilment through having goals that are interesting to work on and which use our strengths and abilities.

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-3-27 16:40 編輯 ]
kc 07/3/27 16:19
原帖由 抽刀斷水 於 2007-3-27 00:52 發表
鄭秀文年前遊歷印度,也感受到當地人的快樂。她說:印度人就算只得到一個蘋果,也很快樂。


是得到蘋果時很快樂還是什麼呢?

原帖由 抽刀斷水 於 2007-3-27 00:52 發表
印度,四大文明古國之一,其餘的是中國、埃及、巴比倫(伊拉克?)。她們究竟和其他國家有何分別?


印度、中國:經濟高速增長(而非所謂的生活簡單)令人對前景充滿希望/幻想?

那種增長幅度在經濟強國是不太可能出現的。
沙文 07/3/27 16:21
原帖由 Paul 於 2007-3-27 00:11 發表
我認為是信仰及價值觀影響著人的樂觀~
冇錯,我决定信最能令人開心的印度教了
匿名 07/3/27 16:43
Tp Sherman : 你而家好似威脅緊我咁既... ?

To Dye : 關係的確也是重要的一環
抽刀斷水 07/3/27 16:50
原帖由 kc 於 2007-3-27 16:19 發表
是得到蘋果時很快樂還是什麼呢?

應該是噢,那只是電視訪問鄭秀文休息時去了那裡的節目,她亦只輕輕回答而已。她說(大概意思):「為何印度人反而比香港人更容易快樂?就算得到一個蘋果也可快樂大半天?這是值得反思的問題。」
dye 07/3/27 16:57
The law of diminishing util

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

The “law” of diminishing marginal utility is said to explain the “paradox of water and diamonds”, most commonly associated with Adam Smith[7] (though recognized by earlier thinkers).[8] Human beings cannot even survive without water, whereas diamonds were in Smith's day mere ornamentation. Yet water had a very small price, and diamonds a very large price, by any normal measure. Marginalists explained that it is the marginal usefulness of any given quantity that matters, rather than the usefulness of a class or of a totality. For most people, water was sufficiently abundant that the loss or gain of a gallon would withdraw or add only some very minor use if any; whereas diamonds were in much more restricted supply, so that the lost or gained use were much greater.

-----------------------

“paradox of Hong Kong luxury and India's apple”,

" For most HKer,  luxury was sufficiently abundant that the loss or gain of a gallon would withdraw or add only some very minor use if any; whereas India's apple to Indian were in much more restricted supply, so that the lost or gained use were much greater."

[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2007-3-27 17:50 編輯 ]
抽刀斷水 07/3/27 17:30
dye兄咁鬼認真,搵埋支持既理據添喎。

類似理論都似古語「滿招損,謙受益」的應用喎。
匿名 07/3/27 18:00
原帖由 Guest from 219.76.240.x 於 2007-3-27 16:43 發表
Tp Sherman : 你而家好似威脅緊我咁既... ?

我决志都犯著您?
1 [2] [3] >>

返回首頁 | 登錄 | 註冊