Skip to main contentSkip to solution

Economists have spent most of the 20th century ignoring psychology, positive or otherwise. But today there is a great deal of emphasis on how happiness can shape global economies, or on a smaller scale successful business practice. This is driven, in part, by a trend in "measuring" positive emotions, mostly so they can be optimized. Neuroscientists, for example, claim to be able to locate specific emotions, such as happiness or disappointment, in particular areas of the brain. Wearable technologies, such as Spire, offer data-driven advice on how to reduce stress.

We are no longer just dealing with "happiness" in a philosophical or romantic sense - it has become something that can be monitored and measured, including by our behavior, use of social media and bodily indicators such as pulse rate and facial expressions.

There is nothing automatically sinister about this trend. But it is disquieting that the businesses and experts driving the quantification of happiness claim to have our best interests at heart, often concealing their own agendas in the process. In the workplace, happy workers are viewed as a "win-win." Work becomes more pleasant, and employees, more productive. But this is now being pursued through the use of performance evaluating wearable technology, such as Humanize or Virgin Pulse, both of which monitor physical signs of stress and activity toward the goal of increasing productivity.

Cities such as Dubai, which has pledged to become the "happiest city in the world," dream up ever more elaborate and intrusive ways of collecting data on well-being to the point where there is now talk of using CCTV cameras to monitor facial expressions in public spaces. New ways of detecting emotions are hitting the market all the time: One company, Beyond Verbal, aims to calculate moods conveyed in a phone conversation, potentially without the knowledge of at least one of the participants. And Facebook has demonstrated that it could influence our emotions through tweaking our news feeds opening the door to ever-more targeted manipulation in advertising and influence.

As the science grows more sophisticated and technologies become more intimate with our thoughts and bodies, a clear trend is emerging. Where happiness indicators were once used as a basis to reform society, challenging the obsession with money that G.D.P. measurement entrenches, they are increasingly used as a basis to transform or discipline individuals.

Happiness becomes a personal project, that each of us must now work on, like going to the gym. Since the 1970s, depression has come to be viewed as a cognitive or neurological defect in the individual, and never a consequence of circumstances. All of this simply escalates the sense of responsibility each of us feels for our own feelings, and with it, the sense of failure when things go badly. A society that deliberately removed certain sources of misery, such as precarious and exploitative employment, may well be a happier one. But we won't get there by making this single, often fleeting emotion, the over-arching goal.

The author's view would be undermined by which of the following research findings?

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 3

From passage: "But it is disquieting that the businesses and experts driving the quantification of happiness claim to have our best interests at heart, often concealing their own agendas in the process."

The author's main concern -> There's a growing trend of measuring and collecting data on people's happiness/well-being -> This trend is problematic because it's being used to control and manipulate people rather than help them.

The author provides many examples: wearable tech monitoring stress, CCTV cameras tracking facial expressions, companies detecting moods in phone calls, etc.

To undermine this argument, we need evidence that contradicts the author's central claim about this data collection trend.


🟠 Option 1 -> supports author -> More gyms collecting well-being data actually proves the author's point about the growing trend

🟠 Option 2 -> supports author -> Adoption of emotion-tracking wearables confirms exactly what the author is warning about

🟢 Option 3 -> undermines author -> If stakeholders are moving away from collecting well-being data, then the author's entire argument about this problematic trend falls apart

🟠 Option 4 -> supports author -> Individuals using monitoring tech shows the trend is real, supporting the author's concerns

The key insight: The author's whole argument depends on this data collection trend actually happening. If research showed people were moving away from it (Option 3), the author's concerns would be unfounded.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question