First, let me say that I don’t think the idea of a genetic cause is impossible. Of cause it’s possible. I just find in more plausible that culture as well external factors, which there a lot of, come together to make Scandinavian countries come out number in the happiness index. Someone has to be number one, and comparing countries across cultures isn’t always completely meaningful in my opinion. I also think you underestimate the importance, of what low levels of corruption in a society, says about that society. How it raises a lot of parameters - like feelings of safety, trust etc
If you haven’t already, you should read “THE HAPPY DANES Exploring the reasons behind the high levels of happiness in Denmark”, by something with the stupid name of The Happiness Research Institute. It’s a pdf and you can find it on their website. I’d post the link if I could. In spite of the silly name, and that it looks like a commercial for Denmark, it’s a serious publication with lots of references for its claims. The guy who started the institute also wrote a book about danish culture.
Alaska is about at the same latitude as Scandinavia, but over 90% of Canadians live in much more southerly latitudes. You can easily check it on Google Maps, but to give you an idea, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto are at the same latitude as the south of France, northern Italy or Croatia. The most northern major Canadian city is Edmonton, which is at the latitude of the Netherlands.
Okay, then Canada doesn’t work. What about Alaska? Anyway, It doesn’t change my point, which was that the hypothesis should be pretty easy to test, if someone put their mind to it. You would just need to make a study of happiness, were you compare people who have the same background as well as culture, and all born and bred in Scandinavia, but with a different genetic background. Unfortunately, I don’t believe adoptee's would work, because I actually think that people were adopted as children, generally are more unhappy. And I recall something about them having more psychic problems than the general populace too.
From what I know, Baltic people have considerably more WHG than Scandinavians. The Narva culture was essentially WHG, with Y-DNA I2a and mtDNA U5b. Even the Finns and Saami inherited that mtDNA U5b and V (similar to Iberians) from WHG, while Scandinavian have higher SHG and EHG.
I laughed at myself afterwards, because obviously baltic HG’s could never be Scandinavian HG’s, they would be Baltic of cause
Anyway, the Baltic HG’s were apparently mostly, of if not fully, WHG stock. But it doesn’t change the point I was making. There are people in Europe, like baltic people or people in northern Russia who have a way higher amount of their DNA inherited from HG’s, than Scandinavians do, and all those HG’s lived for just as long, at just as northerly altitudes. Some of these people of cause, have admixture from people from the uralics too. But they too, both the western and eastern uralic people also have ancestors who lived at these altitudes for just as long. And don’t people in the north of Scotland, for instance, also have the same amount of HG’s ancestry from HG’s that lived at those latitudes for just as long as the Scandinavian ones? Except they would originally have been of pure WHG stock, instead of mix of EHG and WHG.
As I said in my previous post, the SHG’s were a mix of WHG and EHG meeting up in Scandinavia. Two different studies I already mentioned have found this.
The EHG who’s genome is based on some Mesolithic skeletons from Karelia. These EHG’s would be much more likely candidates for such a optimism-gene, imo. Since they actually lived further north for a longer time - or so I personally believe. I believe very pale skin, red hair and blond hair originated with these people, who passed it on to the yamnaya. It’s just how it seem to me, at the moment with what we know so far. The SHG had I2 and and U5 haplogroups too, by the way, which isn’t surprising going by their autosomal DNA.
Of cause, all this doesn’t disprove the genetic hypothesis, not at all. It could be a fluke, a founder effect. But it makes it less likely to me.
It doesn't. I was just explaining that genes are under constant evolutionary pressure and their frequency can quickly vary due to environmental or lifestyle changes. My point was that if Scandinavians could increase their frequency of lactase persistence from 0% to 95% in 4000 years, a similar evolutionary pressure could easily have increased the frequency of a gene conferring resilience to depression or pessimism (not the same things) in the last 12,000 years. Whatever new wave of immigrants to Scandinavia would eventually have picked it up when the populations blended with one another. The last major arrival were the Indo-Europeans in the Bronze Age, and the previous Neolithic and Mesolithic inhabitants with whom they mixed did get the lactase persistence gene.
But you still haven’t explained why you think people who are either very pessimistic or have a tendency to get depressed wouldn’t get children and pass on their genes? I can see how very optimistic people would get more children, and also have more success in general, but I fail to see why that genetic trait would stay confined to the north, since it would be an advantage no matter where you lived, be it cold or warm in the winter.
Also I can’t really see it playing that big a role among hunter-gatherers because of their lifestyle. Hunter-gatherers are mostly focused on basic immediate needs. When you live in a way, were planning doesn’t go further than what you will eat for dinner, then optimism/pessimism doesn’t play that big a role. Do hunter-gatherers get depression, and just sit around all day doing nothing? I think a lot of modern “mental issues” developed together with civilisation. Anorexia is a good example of that.
About lactase persistence, I think it is a bad example, because it doesn’t just have high levels Scandinavia, but in all of northern Europe, as well Hungary, Ireland and the UK. It’s frequency in mainland Italy is about 50% from what I can gather, while Sardinians seem to only have 14%. From what I gather it’s presence is pretty significant in France too. Have a look at “A worldwide correlation of lactase persistence phenotype and genotypes”. They link to it from the Wikipedia page on LP.
As I understand it, our current understanding is that it wasn’t until the bronze age that LP was fixed in the European population, or maybe we should rather say the northern European population. Since then it’s spread quite a lot. And the optimism gene would have had much longer time to spread out across all of the European population, if it’s origin was in the mesolithic. Unless we assume that it actually has a much later origin like LP - which I’d personally be rather inclined to believe.
In the bronze age, we actually had a climate in Scandinavia similar to southern France, but enter the iron age, it became very wet and cold here. Could there have been a bottle neck around that time? Quick "selection of the fittest” because of famine and hard times. War. The romans to the south. In such a setting, optimism would have been a very important trait. I still find it unlikely, but sure possible.
I remember reading once, how many villages were abandoned going from the BA to the IA in southern Scandinavia, and how patterns of sacrifice changed. It’s clear that the focus in their myths changed. The myth of the sun chariot seemed very important to the BA Scandinavians, but when we get to the Viking age, it’s completely moved in the background in favour of wargods like Thor, Tyr and Odin.
I see that geography isn't your strong suit. Denmark, Finland and Norway have about 5.5 millions inhabitants each. Sweden has 9 millions. In comparison, Ireland has 4 million, New Zealand 4.6 million, Austria has 8.5 million. The Netherlands (16 million) and Australia (24 million) are a bit more population, but not that much (less than twice and 3 times that of Sweden). On the other hand, Luxembourg has only 0.5 million inhabitants, 10 times less than Denmark. Ireland is certainly as homogeneous as Denmark, if not more. They are almost purely Celtic (R1b-L21) and have very few immigrants compared to Scandinavia.
Ha ha. No, you’re right. Geography certainly doesn’t seem to be my strong suit. I’m not claiming size and homogeneity are the only factor making people happy, but I believe it is one of them. The reason is that it is easier, to keep a small country with a pretty homogeneous population happy, than a bigger and more diverse population.
It’s way easier to be Lars Løkke Rasmussen, the Danish prime minister, than being Macron - at the moment.
Now you mention Ireland (which by the way also has close to 100% LP) I can see several differences between Ireland and Denmark. Ireland is a much more conservative and religious country. They also have the conflict going on in the northern for the last 100 years or so, festering like a wound. In Scandinavia we haven’t had any kind of violent conflict for ages, except for a relatively uneventful second world war. (Denmark is currently at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we don’t feel this at all)
Also Ireland was the poorest country in Europe until not that long ago, together with Portugal, and I seem to recall they were hit pretty bad by the economic crisis. But in all fairness, I don’t think Scandinavian countries are all that homogeneous any longer- But we used to be, and like everything else that I’m talking about in Denmark, it used to be better before - and maybe I’m talking about a Denmark that doesn’t exist anymore. But since most danes are pretty well off, maybe we just didn’t realise yet, how much everything is going down the drain.
Harakiri and all? I see that you have a profound understanding of modern Japanese culture. What part of Japanese culture do you think makes them unhappy? The anime and video game culture or the obsession with cute things and good food? Or their liberated sex life maybe (wait, that's the same in Denmark).
It seems to have no effect at all on Japanese happiness. For all measurable data in the study on happiness (GDP, life expectancy, etc.) Japan scored very high. They have one of the safest and most trusting society on Earth. And yet they are unhappy. So what makes Scandinavians happy and the Japanese unhappy? I can't see anything else than genetic differences. The proof is that all East Asians are unhappy, and that Scandinavian Americans are just as happy as Scandinavians in Scandinavia.
Lol, that hara-kiri comment was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, but I thought you would get what I meant.
How about insane work ethics, which cause a really bad balance between work life and leisure? People napping in the trains home from their 12 hour shifts? One week of holiday every year etc. Young people killing themselves from the pressure and expectations of the society and their parents? Or is that just happening in south Korea and China know? Or not at all?
I know that Japan is changing. Young japanese are becoming more “Western” in many ways. Going to techno raves, taking drugs, backpacking etc. etc. (when I say young, I mean up to 40) But until recently, I think japan was a much more conservative society than the Scandinavian ones, and in many ways, I’m sure it still is.
Also, of cause this is not culture, but the majority of the Japanese live in really big overpopulated cities. Not much tree’s or greenstuff in Tokyo, if I recal correctly, except for that big park in the center.
The house prices in the bigger cities in Denmark have gone up in recent years, and from personal experience, I can tell you that that is something making a lot of people more unhappy. As I recall my trip to Tokyo, it’s completely extreme compared to Europe in that regard. Maybe London is following suit?
Anyway, I’m not going to claim I’m an expert in asian culture, but it seems to me that it’s not really meaningful to compare europeans and asians because of the cultural differences. Some of those differences stem from Buddhism and Taoism etc. even though people aren’t particularly religious anymore. In Denmark we discuss a lot what influence Protestantism has had on our society for instance. It’s an ongoing debate obviously.
We will see, but if I am right about genetics being the cause of happiness, chances are low that Scandinavians will be as unhappy as southern Europeans. On the other hand Scandinavian countries are welcoming far too many poor Muslim immigrants/refugees, so it could destroy their present culture and lifestyle and make them unhappy. The EU isn't to blame for this. If Muslim immigration goes unrestrained, 30% of the population of Sweden will be Muslim in 2050 and 16% in Denmark.
Yes, yes, I know and I agree. I believe the middle projection to be the correct one though, at least for Denmark. But 5% more muslims in Denmark in 10 years is also too much.
I blame the EU because they made the Schengen agreement without having a proper plan about what to do about immigrants and refugees - and they still don’t. EU is a mess in my opinion. It might be because of selfish reasons, but I’d like to get our borders back, please.
A lot of happiness or unhappiness is illusory. That was my point with the French and all their negativity and pessimism. They live in one of the best societies and one of the most liveable countries on Earth and nevertheless are the world champions of complaining and striking.
Yes, it’s a good argument. There might be a genetic explanation, but it might also be culture that you are mistaking for genes. And “correlation doesn’t mean causation” is still a pretty basic scientific axiom. The correlation you see with Germanic people also fits with Lutheran Protestantism for instance, and Scandinavian culture.
I looked it up and the S.U system is just Denmark's system of grants for poorer students. Most developed countries have similar programs, although students do not always get paid to attend university (usually the grant just cover all the expenses).
No, not really. It’s unique in the world. Every Danish citizen above the age of 18, and not living at their parent’s place, are entitled to S.U. when they study - even the richest man in Denmark (and then very cheap loans from the state with that, if the S.U is not enough for you)
Actually, the S.U system is obviously getting more and more limited like everything else in our society. You can get it as long as you want, when you go to what is called “youth education”, which is basically everything not university. At the university it’s now limited to 6 years I think. So you can get the money until you’ve done your master thesis, and then there’s one year to spare, called the “fjumre år”, which basically means “the botch up year”. But I think they are talking about removing that.
Back in the 70ies and 80ies, we had this concept of “perpetual students”, people set their up lives so they could live for the S.U, and basically spent all their lives studying at the university, first taking a degree in biology, then psychiaty, then history etc. etc…..So, in the end of the 90ies they made a limit of 6 years at the university.
On the monetary side, S.U is about also just covering your rent and basic costs, like a poor students grant. Most students work on the side or take the cheap loan, which they then never pay back. Lol. But some people can get by on the S.U. I did for 1½ year because I was lucky and had a very cheap rent.
But yeah, it doesn’t matter. I don’t think the S.U system itself, is what is making danes happy - But it does help.
Be that as it may, you are mistaken to think that the Danes are over-educated. Looking at the .., Denmark ranks only 19th (36%) among developed countries, behind all other Nordic countries, but also behind Estonia, Lithuania and Russia, and behind Japan, South Korea, Israel, the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, Ireland, Switzerland and Belgium. I know that many Danes are proud of their country, but the danger of being too proud is that you get a too rosy view of things and loose touch with reality. Denmark has about the same percentage of university graduates as Spain and is in the bottom half of the EU.
Really? Fancy that. I totally agree with the last part. To be honest, I don’t think I see my own society with too rosy glasses, but I can understand if it comes off like that.
I agree that being on the dole rarely make somebody happy. But why are you saying that the dole isn't social security? What is social security for you then?
In Denmark we have this concept called “det sociale sikkerhedsnet” which translated means “the social security net”. The system is supposed to catch you if you fall. I realise all other countries in Europe, also has this in varying degrees and some countries are probably better at it today than we are. But it is a big thing here, when the society fail catching people it's a scandal. I remember back in the 90’ies, you’d never see crazy homeless people on streets here in Copenhagen, because they were all at the hospital getting help. But it’s not like that today, cut backs have put them out on the streets, were they now live together with all the romanian gypsies we now have squatting - thanks to the EU.
We also have the concept, that our society should work to break the “Negative social heritage”. The S.U system for instance, is a part of that. Funnily enough, Danish people aren’t very good at break out of their “Negative social heritage”, in contrast to south Koreans for instance. So maybe it’s just the idea of these social democrat concepts, that make the well-off danes believe everything is still rosy here?
Danish people are actually quite lazy and comfortable, in my subjective opinion, even though we always pride ourselves of our protestant work ethics. I don't think we don’t like to work too much or too hard. And maybe that is part of our success. We’ve had economic success, but without too much of an effort.
Wealth is only one facet of quality of life. That's why I mentioned the long holidays, early retirement, good food, beautiful country, high life expectancy... If none of these matter to you, then what do you think make people happy? Whatever aspect of life we look at, Danes (or Scandinavians in general) are superseded by other countries. Yet Scandinavians are the happiest. What is the big secret then? I am telling you the genes for happiness are looking like a good answer now.
I’m not saying these things don’t matter. I just think there’s culture too, as well other external factors like population size, homogeneity (like in northern Ireland or Germany), how conservative the society/culture is, degree of religiosity etc. etc. etc. I don’t think it’s just one simple answer. Actually, I’m sure that things like food and climate have minimal bearing on your happiness, because we can all get french food. And things like climate and nature, we take for granted if we grew up with it.
Macron is a great president, perhaps the best France has ever had. Many people love him. But as it is France, there will always be people who are dissatisfied and unhappy about anything and everything. The main reason people voted for the National Front was because of Muslim immigrants and refugees. The problem was exacerbated in most of Europe with the Syrian crisis. But if you think that Scandinavia is being spared (check again the link above), once again you are looking at the world through tinted glasses.
I was talking about the voting system they have in France. I recall that a lot of people voted for Macron in the second round, because they didn’t want to vote Marine Le Pen. So, they didn’t actively choose Macron, but rather voted against Le Pen.
I don’t know where you got the impression that I think Scandinavia is spared anything
I actually think we are going down the drain at the moment. Which is why I vote for the Danish people’s party (Danish UKIP light. Our local populist party) They say NO to EU and NO to immigration.
Actually Macron is going to pass his reforms regardless of rail workers striking for months. It's far more challenging to be a head of state in France than in Denmark, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.
Absolutely. As I said earlier, I think a part of our success is that we became well off, without actually working to much for it. Our success has been easy.
I must say I don’t have enough time, to keep up this discussion any longer (maybe I just write too long posts? Or maybe I’m just very stubborn and argumentative?) But I want to say, that while we might not agree on this topic, I thoroughly enjoyed reading all your articles on various haplogroups. And while some people might not agree on your interpretation of the aDNA data we have so far, I certainly mostly do.