US Mood Map

[Puck]

I moved from Florida to south GA, and I know the people here are generally happier.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/images/090429-stress-map-kentucky-picture_big.jpg

From the NatGeo site:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090429-stress-map-kentucky-picture.html

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

I thought the national mood map turned blue when you were, like, "cool", and "red" when you felt sexy, or sumpin' like that? Or maybe that was the national mood ring (just can't get the 70's out of my system...).

Anyway, looks like on this map, the lighter the red tone, the fewer mentally distressed people there are (equals "happy" in this graph), and the redder the area, the more mentally distressed people there are. In realily this assumption of "happiness" in areas where there are not many mentally distressed people makes a VERY HARSH judgement of mentally ill people: It assumes an entire area will be much more happy without you there. For example, Kentucky is the "saddest" since it has 14.4% mentaly distressed people. The logic of the thing seems to assume that they are bringing the other 85.6% of the population down, since the entire area becomes "unhappy" by having that many mentally distressed people around. Mental health workers may not be entirely happy to see a graph whose only conclusion is that having a few more percentage points of mentally distressed people around brings everyone else down.

Pretty harsh. It is entirely possible that the rest of Kentucky is, in fact, far happier than people in other states, so on average the state is NOT more unhappy (maybe Pentacostalism, horse racing, and beer gives the rest of the population preternatural glee).

[Dofgnid]

I think there's a Baptist factor in play here. LINK (http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/237-regionalism-and-religiosity/)

[Christina]

I think that a lot of people might describe themselves as mentally distressed that don't have a mental illness and I didn't read it as being particularly targeted at us. A lot of us would probably be happier without all of the 'normal' unhappy whiners around too since being distressed isn't an indicator of mental illness. I seem to be happier than most sane people I know. If I did misread it and they were specifically talking about unhappiness generated by being around people with a mental illness, oh well. It must suck to be them and we all have our little crosses to bear. (Bare?)

[Matty]

I looked at the map and assumed that the red colour indicated "hungry" with the peach colour "ravenous" ?



you do know that when they extend the map to take in Canada there is just a line of dancing banana smilies all along that border dont you? Its all relative. :)

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

No matter what, logically speaking, stating that "14.4% of the people in Kentucky are mentailly distressed" can make no statement about happiness (or unhappiness) in the other 85.6% of the population. Nor would it prove that "on average" Kentuckians are less happy than people in other states.

For example, a study might show that "10% of Americans are underweight", but that proves nothing about remaining 90% who are not underweight, nor does it indicate much about the national average for obesity. A study certainly shouldn't just quote one statistic such as "10% of Americans are underweight" to reach the conclusion that "Americans are not obese".

It is quite possible that the other 85.6% of Kentuckians are on a meth-high or giddy with Pentacostal glossolalian joy (or, more than likely, both), and twice as happy as the rest of America, thus on average more than compensating for the bottom 14.4%.