That's an argument from authority, essentially saying that it is not possible for such a group to have released nonsense data. One can believe the data was gathered according to strict principles but still believe that the data gathered is nonsense due to errors in self-reporting.

I might report higher happiness right after lunch than right before lunch. I might be happier right after getting a kind text from a friend than before. Or after having sex. Or after watching a funny video. Or after petting my cat. Need I go on?

Any one of those and more could be the singular reason for a 7 instead of a 3 in a given report. There are too many confounding factors to draw any meaningful conclusions from the reports.

▲

GeoAtreides 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I absolutely did not say that. It's not an argument from authority if I trust a specialist in their field with issues in their field.

My problem is with drive-by snarkiness and cynicism comments. If OP had a problem with the study methodology and results, they should've said that.

You yourself are not criticizing the study. You are positing a issue with the data, without checking first if the study addresses the issue at all, and then writing off the whole thing without doing your research first.

And, finally, are you saying oxford professors and, can't overstate this enough, Gallup researchers (Gallup!) are not aware of the problems of self-reported data?!

▲

jacobgkau 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> It's not an argument from authority if I trust a specialist in their field with issues in their field.

Yes, it kind of is an argument from authority to simply "trust" them. You chastised someone on not checking "what the methodology used was," then cited only the names of the groups who carried it out and said nothing about the methodology.

	▲	GeoAtreides 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I trust Einstein and everyone else on the relativity theory. I trust Andrew Wiles and the dozen of people who understood his proof. I trust my doctor. You do too. Of course, I was criticising the way they argue, a meta-argument, not the argument itself. I have no interest in discussing the methodology or result of this study.
	▲	jdiff 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They're criticizing the lack of commentary on the actual methodology. You can't defend a methodology from someone who doesn't not specify any mentioned weaknesses. It's sowing doubt with no basis, and that is worthy of criticism in itself.