I have been reading a lot of articles on social capital lately.

I might conclude, "There is no de facto standard definition of social capital."

So, I decided to return to the books of the first proponent of the concept and began my own interpretation.

'Friends are bonds' -- I told this story to my wife, and she looked disgusted.

Wife: "Well, it's fine to say 'there is a monetary value to being active in a neighborhood association,' but the idea that a price can be put on a friend' is offensive."

Ebata: "It may be uncomfortable, but it's logical -- there are many people who say that 'money is not the only factor in human happiness,' but this is the same as saying point blank that the premise is 'I don't deny that money is a component of happiness.'"

Wife: "That may be true, though."

Ebata: "Then, that 'something other than money' is probably some 'value. So, suppose we can't talk about happiness based on the number of friends. Who can confidently assert that there is no difference in happiness between being alone and having more than one friend and that it is a matter of subjectivity?

Wife: "..."

Ebata: "I couldn't find a single paper that said the life of disconnected social relationships is happiness,' and the number of communities and friends calculated the total amount of social capital in existing studies."

Wife: "..."

Ebata: "I think it is logically wrong to say that there is a difference in happiness between zero friends and one friend, but not between one and two friends.

-----

However, more friends are not better, which can be explained by the concept of "marginal utility" in economics.

To begin with, the loneliness check questionnaire says the same thing: a friend can put a price on your friend', I think.

Now, what do you think?