So on msn today there is an article detailing how people follow a “U” shaped pattern in regards to happiness over the course of their life. In other words, starting at early at adulthood, happiness declines until around 45 where it bottoms out before rising again around 55 and on into retirement. Nothing about this article is particularly note-worthy except for the following paragraph:

"The authors also find that over the last century, Americans, both men and women, have gotten steadily—and hugely—less happy. The difference in happiness of men between men of my generation, born in the 1960s, and my father's generation, born in the 1920s, is the same as the effect of a tenfold difference in income. In other words, if my father had little money compared to his contemporaries and I have lots of money compared to mine, I can still expect to be less happy. Here, curiously, the European pattern diverges. Happiness falls for the birth years from 1900 to about 1950, and generations born on the continent since World War II have gotten successively happier."

(I use quotes because I can't indent in this silly blog easily. If you don't like my incorrect formatting then a pox on you and your family.)

I draw your attention to the last two sentences, “Here, curiously, the European pattern diverges. Happiness falls for the birth years from 1900 to about 1950, and generations born on the continent since World War II have gotten successively happier.” Curiously? CURIOUSLY?! Really? I can’t imagine why people born after World War II might possibly be happier than people born before, during, or immediately following. And hell, at 1900 you’ve got some folks in there who lived (and fought) through World War I and World War II. Curious indeed how that might affect their overall happiness.

I swear, sometimes I’m flabbergasted by the word choice of those writing professional articles. If you don’t want to make a sweeping general statement then don’t remark on it one way or the other—just cut out the “curiously.” But is it really all that curious? It is possible, mind you, that the author is being factious here. I’ll even give him the benefit of the doubt. At least that way he’s only guilty of his humor going awry, not being heinously stupid.

Ah screw it; it’s more fun to think of him as stupid. I’m going with that.