What I'm referring to are correlations between group-level variables at the level of nations or states.
There's a kind of disconnect in that on the one hand, you end up with these models of why disruptive political change happens — because people are deeply dissatisfied and having trouble making ends meet and so forth (cf the price of eggs etc) — but then on the other, end up concluding that well-being is inelastic to external events. So which is it?
Maybe it has nothing to do with aggregate level measurement? Even the trauma example is sort of telling: someone can end up being deeply impacted and their reported well-being remains the same (or even increases), but that story is very oversimplified at some level.
Sometimes I feel as if this line of reasoning leads to absurdities, like there's nothing wrong with traumatic harm or abuse because people are resilient and it doesn't matter to their well-being. I'm being provocative on purpose to make a point — I don't think anyone really thinks that — but at some point you have to wrestle with the implications of what is being said, and at that point it kind of starts to become internally inconsistent.