12 ms·

Are we happier when we spend more time with others?

184 points by brahmwg 7y ago

Ididntdothis 7y ago
I think the real value of spending time with others is having a support network. I often don't do well in groups and simply don't enjoy it so I do a lot of things alone. But the major drawback is that I don't have much of a support network outside of close family. I am definitely worried that if something happens to me nobody will help me.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ycombinete 7y ago
  There are proximate causes, and ultimate causes. You have identified an ultimate cause for social behavior. A proximate cause would be that we do it because it makes us feel better.
ghi5goio3qno4i3 7y ago
I've always wondered about these kinds of studies. For example, let's say we took a loner and gave them a 24/7 health monitor system that also helped apply preventative and corrective treatments, would someone live just as long as someone with a social support network? Presumably at some point in the near future we're going reach that level of technical accessibility for the average consumer, I would wonder perhaps if the results would change when systems like these become commonplace. I'd also be curious to see if the same thing regarding happiness could be said if someone had similar support networks that close friends bring, but without human interaction. For instance if same loner was to live out on an island alone but had reliable and easy access to all physical needs, lacked any serious threats to his well being, had enough to keep him busy, would he be just as happy as the those that responded in that report?
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I am not sure but this may work for me.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  If loneliness causes poor health habits, a machine that cures poor health habits would be an exquisite device for psychological torture - removing the possibility of death while preserving all the yearning for it. Asimov wrote a story once about that -- a selfish and suffering God who tortured brilliant souls by giving them eternal life so they would help God in God's quest for a method of suicide that would kill an immortal.
  - ghi5goio3qno4i3 7y ago
    Do you happen to know the name of the story? And in the context of the story, would it not be plausible that they would acclimate to being isolated from their peers? There is precedent. In WW2 there were Japanese soldiers that remained fighting their war for decades after Japan surrendered, cut off from anyone that they could feasible interact with as they still believed they were deep in enemy territory, coming out only when their commanding officer relieved them of duty.
- rjf72 7y ago
  The BBC ran a phenomenal article here [1] detailing a wide array of data on the longevity of people through the ages. How long did higher class Ancient Greeks live? Ancient Greece dates back to starting around 3,300 years ago. In spite of their remarkable technological achievements they remained almost entirely ignorant of medicine. They relied on a system based around the 'four humors' - blood, phlegm, yellow/black bile. They had no clue about germs or any other basic fundamentals of modern medicine. Vaccines? You need to wait about 3,000 years. And their hygenic habits are the sort we'd find pretty questionable. For instance they obviously did not have rolls of 2 ply at their toilets. Instead what they had were sponges - butt brushes. One guy'd do his business. You'd come in, and give the well used sponge a swirl about in some water. For the fancy toilets, you might give it a swirl in some vinegar. And then you'd have your go. So how long did they live? The BBC article mentioned a 'census' of the longevity of individuals we now are familiar with. The median life expectancy was 72 years. Pythagorus - 75, Hippocrates - 90, Plato - 80, etc. Of course there's some some selection bias there, but there is also other evidence of their longevity as well. For instance in Ancient Rome one could not hold the office of Consul until reaching the age of 43, first office was not available until age 30. Another mildly intriguing part anecdote there is that the life expectancy declined pretty substantially for those born in the latter part of the civilization (after 100BC) to only 66 years. The likely culprit there is the installation of significant public piping systems... made out of lead. They inadvertently poisoned themselves for centuries. The article also goes on to analyze numerous other sources than tend to paint a recurring picture: there was high infant and youth mortality, but people who made it to adulthood tended to have a life expectancy not all that different than we do today. It seems to suggest that a large part of our increased life expectancy is not from the trillions of dollars we've spent on trying to find a [profit making] pill for everything, but instead from very simple things like access to clean water and food. [1] - http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181002-how-long-did-ancien...
jerryuen 7y ago
I found this study to be a good reference but I question how useful some of the data are for 20-30 years old people nowadays because: 1. The study started in 1938, which is a very different time comparing to today. Young people has way more options to enjoy life alone such as traveling, playing video games, watching youtube by themselves just to name a few. 2. The participants are mostly 90 years old now and it is understandable that they prefer relationship comparing to 20 years old folks nowadays. 3. Also, I don't see any information about the amount of friends. Is it the same having 1 friend vs 100 friends vs 1000 friends on facebook? Probably not. 4. Just seeing some random participants in their 70' in year 2000 saying they are more happy with friends is not really useful for people today. It would be nice to see the chart moving based on different time (2000 vs 2019) for different generation group. 5. "the search for happiness can become a source of unhappiness", is kind of depressing and confusing. Is going out with a friend consider "search for happiness"? I "can become" a billionaire buying lottery tickets, does that mean I should or shouldn't buy the ticket? It is based on the success rate and this article is missing that data. I say you should evaluate from time to time if having friends or not (and how many) make you better or happier. I disagree that spending time with others ALWAYS make you happier. For example, I dislike traveling with large group of friends due to noise, planning and logistic issues.
- cjpb 7y ago
  You raise some good points. I also believe personality types play a large part, for example I'm an introvert, and while spending time with others makes me happy - that can easily be negated if I spend too much time with others or don't have a chance to come up for air (e.g. some alone time). Not to mention the personality types of others as well. I have introverted friends whom I can quite happily spend weeks at a time with (low energy, deep conversations, no awkwardness with silence), and on the other end of the scale there are friends who are extremely extroverted whom I cannot spend more than several hours with (high energy, shallow and constant changing of topics being discussed, a feeling of awkwardness when there is silence).
  - jchw 7y ago
    I agree, being introverted definitely seems to impact the amount of time you want to spend with others, though I am maybe somewhat different in my preferences. I absolutely enjoy spending time with people, but even spending time with other introverted folks can be tiring for me, because sometimes I just want to sit in a quiet room completely alone. (Many of my other, also very introverted friends, disagree and can spend nearly all of their time with like-minded people. Which can be a little awkward.)
kodz4 7y ago
My plan is to run for President or get into politics atleast. Watching all these Geezers having the time of their lives in their 70s and 80s has made up my mind. Just look at Ralf Nader, Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh ranting and raving away with the energy of 10 year olds. It's that social mojo they are tapping into man. If I can wake up everyday troll the country, get a pat on the back from my buddies in my 90s...I think I'll die reasonably happy.
- trevyn 7y ago
  FWIW, I bet that there’s a lot of hormone replacement therapy going on in that cohort.
  - balfirevic 7y ago
    That is... unlikely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_therapy I guess you meant this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_replacement_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_replacement_therapy
    - trevyn 7y ago
      Ah, thanks. I was thinking both growth hormone and androgens, though there may be other hormones and factors involved as well.
ed-209 7y ago
Better question: how out of touch must one be with themselves for this to even be a question?
- lonelappde 7y ago
  The mark of an intellectual is curious mind is to investigate even things that seem obvious, to understand their nature.
- rofo1 7y ago
  This is not obvious at all, especially the effects on health. Mental health - ok, that might be something that you can deduce based on examples (grumpy old solo grandpa that yells in the air - mental issues). But can you really conclude just from common sense that human relationships have effect on your _physical health_?
hq992 7y ago
I need to spend time with people. I feel miserable when I don't. I doesn't matter if it's quality time, I can literally be doing nothing useful but if I'm sharing that time with someone else then it's all good. The irony is that I frequently don't because of some circumstances that I live in, but I'm working hard to change change that.
- rofo1 7y ago
  > I doesn't matter if it's quality time Does it matter with whom? How about people openly disrespecting you under the guise of friendship? (I've seen this happen thousands of times, never understood why people tolerate it) How about backstabbers? How about people envious of you? My point is - does it really have the same effect on you, regardless of the quality of relationship?
- slx26 7y ago
  I'm pretty much the opposite. I can get along with people and I never have problems with others, but I just can't stand being with people. It completely drains me, and I tend to become depressed for a few days afterwards. It doesn't matter if the interaction is "pleasant" or not.
  - effie 7y ago
    It is interesting how people are different. Perhaps some group evolution survival strategy? If all people liked being with other people, we would basicall end up all in single place and discover new places and new people far away more slowly. And if all people hated company, we could not build anything big such as towns or countries.
toomanybeersies 7y ago
It is just me, or does "at least once a month" not really seem like regular interaction with friends? I'd have thought at least once a week would qualify as regular. Once a month seems really irregular, I couldn't imagine seeing my friends only a dozen times a year. Is this common?
- varjag 7y ago
  It is irregular I agree, and it is common. Depending how you slice it though; does communicating daily over the net count as surrogate of interaction? At what rate?
- xwdv 7y ago
  This is just how it is when you get older. You’ll see friends maybe once a month for an average of 4 hours or so, basically 0.5% of your year. The rest of the time you spend sleeping, eating, working, occupying yourself with other activities that make up life. One day you might just wake up and realize all your friends are dead and buried, and if you are the last one left then you know you’re next. It’s over. Where did life go?
  - tempsy 7y ago
    This really depends. Would say the biggest factor is kids. Also, a revelation I’ve had as a millennial gay man is because the rate of having kids is relatively low among gay men in particular, anecdotally gay male friends stay in touch at a higher rate than straight counterparts even as we get older. Not necessarily always a good thing, though. Especially in SF gay culture feels even more “Peter Pan” like.
- irrational 7y ago
  Daily was common when I was a teenager. Every other day was common in college. Weekly was common right after college. Now with a full time job, family, house maintenance, etc. I probably average once every 2 months or so and I'm amazed I even have that much time to spend with friends. I'm looking forward to retirement.
axaxs 7y ago
Anecdotally... I am, but I seem doomed. I'm not really antisocial. In fact, I can become overtalkative at times when in a social setting. But, given the option, I never seem to want to 'get out' and socialize. Though, when I force myself to, I am in such a better mood for a few days. Then, back to normal, and avoiding social gatherings again until the next time.
- forgotmypw 7y ago
  I think this is common. In small/tribal communities, this is often mitigated by group events on a regular basis, as well as smaller circles that all check on each other.
- kr4 7y ago
  I think the key to attain ever-lasting happiness is to commit ourselves to doing kind or selfless deeds as a habit [0]. Scientifically it's been observed that when we make someone happy the same region lights up in our brain [1] when we do something to make ourselves happy. Coupled with meditation that makes you more mindful so you can be more kind (kindfullness), you can attain a state of mind in which you can remain happy most of the time. The problems of the world will continue to be there but those will decreasingly have lesser impact on your inner state of happiness. 0: I track and share my random act of kindness (RAKs) on Black Lotus along with logging/measuring my meditation/chanting sessions (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rt.pinprickeffect.meditation&hl=en_IN https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rt.pinpric... ) 1: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/want-to-be-happier-give-m_b_6175358 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/want-to-be-happier-give-m_b_6...
  - randomsearch 7y ago
    Sharing this because I said it the other day and it seemed to resonate. Happiness is overvalued. Meaning or purpose is undervalued. Happiness is based on a transition: something new, a change of circumstances, and is by its nature temporary. Meaning and purpose are long term. Seek meaning, not happiness.
    - 7y ago
cryptozeus 7y ago
May be not a popular opinion but I think we feel happier when we spend friends because it helps us forget about ourselves and inner dialogues. I don’t mean it in a sad or depressing way but our mind chatters all the time and it’s exhausting for the body’s resources. Spending time with others gives us break from that.
- chewz 7y ago
  All of man’s problems stem from his inability to sit quietly in a room alone. -Blaise Pascal
  - rimliu 7y ago
    I was not aware of this quote and I don't really think that all problems are caused by this, but I did notice the said inability. It's is astonishing how people are unable to be in silence and with themselves. The constant need for some drowning noise: radio, TV, Youtube, just headphones with some music 100% of the time they are awake. As if they are afraid to hear something unpleasant if it becomes quiet for a minute. I, otoh, find it very meditative. And my recent hobby/passion/activity are the long (in time and duration walks— 30-100km). These are organized events, so lots of people go, sometimes in thousands (most choose shorter distances though), but I go alone and it is so… healing(?) experience. For 5-18 hours you are just with yourself and your thoughts. There is nothing you can do, just walk. Sure, one can listen to audiobooks or music, but I choose not to—it spoils the experience somehow.
  - cryptozeus 7y ago
    Its a good quote but I don’t think society and world can support this. Why is there a room to begin with and why do you have to be forced to sit down in it. Completely counter intuitive. Same reason why meditation works for those 20 min.
    - chewz 7y ago
      It is just a quote from Pascal's Thoughts so more like haiku or ad hoc observation then a commandment. You don't need to sit 24 hours alone in an empty room - you just should be able to - this is my interpretation. It is like '- Master, how long should I meditate? - 20 minutes is enough. - But I don't have time for that. - If you don't have time then meditate for one hour.'
badrabbit 7y ago
In my experience no human is ok with being socially isolated for a long period of time. But difficulty with forming healthy social relationships makes the experience of attempting to "warm up" to others very unpleasant to people who don't get social exposure to begin with. Especially for anyone that performs extensive introspection it is very difficult and the experience can be interpreted as unhappiness. I think maybe being with others is most pleasant when one has a healthy relationship with one's self.
- rofo1 7y ago
  > I think maybe being with others is most pleasant when one has a healthy relationship with one's self. I don't agree with the rest of your points, but the quoted one is key. No studies to back this up, but I would say that you are decidedly better off being alone than being with (for lack of better word) evil people. These are degrees of evil that seem to be tolerated but that's another topic. In the end, it's literally all in our minds. It's technically in our control (balance of chemicals). Maybe we should devise a way to control them sentiently.
- ur-whale 7y ago
  >In my experience no human is ok with being socially isolated for a long period of time Citation needed. There was an article on HN a couple of weeks back about a guy who spent 20+ years alone in the woods and was perfectly happy for it.
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    >> In my experience no human is ok with being socially isolated for a long period of time > Citation needed. for their experience?
    - Retra 7y ago
      It's a bit incongruous to talk about "all humans" when you haven't experienced them all. Asking for a citation is asking for a justification for this generalization, not for a citation about the experience itself. I mean, if the argument was "no human I've met can stand being alone for long periods of time", the obvious problem is selection bias: you don't meet people who like being alone.
pts_ 7y ago
Sounds like an echo chamber of thoughts. Also spending time reading a book at the very least is spending time with another person because it is written BY another person.
jvvw 7y ago
Hmmm, what about social contact with family members? How long does the interaction need to be to count? Would coffee qualify or chatting to other parents for five minutes each day on the school run? Once a month does feel like a very low threshold to me - but I can see how a lot of people's social contact could be dominated by family. It'd be interesting to distinguish between that and no social contact at all.
rahulkapil 7y ago
Groups make us relatively happier because we innately want freedom from self. Drugs, music, meditation, adventure sports also provide that.
- mapcars 7y ago
  >because we innately want freedom from self Ironically Self is the freedom. The problem is people haven't found what Self is and calling it all kinds of things. One simple thing to look at - does it give you absolute freedom unconditioned by time and space? If not - this is not yet true Freedom.
- Tade0 7y ago
  I can't relate to that and I think that a measurably large portion of the population can't as well. I like being with myself. So much so that I deliberately drive instead of flying so that I can have more "me time".
vectorEQ 7y ago
people looking for blanket solutions to happiness. there is no one size that fits all for that. find what makes you happy by listening to yourself.
- mapcars 7y ago
  Happiness is exactly the same in every human being - is just a certain type of chemistry. In which ways people find access to it depends on person, environment, society and your background - this is what is unique. But all these things are indirect and involve (unreliable) mediums. There are ways to access this directly and be happy and ecstatic every single moment without literally anything.
  - rofo1 7y ago
    This is correct and congruent with what science knows as of today. I sometimes wonder how the world will look like when we would have evolved our science to (perfectly) control the ratio of chemicals inside us. Imagine, happiness on a click. Something like quick dopamine release without side effects.
    - mapcars 7y ago
      I would like to add that this science already exists for thousands of years in such sophisticated form that it does not require external chemicals but rather focuses on enhancing what our body can naturally produce. Imagining this gives you a bit of entertainment, but experiencing this makes imagination a childish game :)
    - effie 7y ago
      I am afraid such happiness would destroy us. Or make us a docile sheep with no ambitions. At least part of humanity accomplishments is because challenges induce chemical imbalances, they take you out of your comfort zone.
mapcars 7y ago
No.
ur-whale 7y ago
I doubt there's an answer to that question that applies to the general population. Some people are miserable without social interaction and others dislike it intensely. And even if someone manages to build some statistics that proves the general answer is "yes", I suspect said answer will be of very little practical use to a given individual.
rvn1045 7y ago
I’m currently spending time traveling and can sometimes go stretches without much interaction. I mostly stay at hostels and it’s wierd how that kind of communal sleeping arrangement makes me feel better even if I’m not actively interacting with people there. I think this was mentioned in the book Tribe by Sebastian Junger, about how we’ve evolved to sleep in large groups and that doesn’t really happen anymore.
- slx26 7y ago
  I guess a big part of the benefits come from being able to feel part of something. Even if you don't interact directly with others, you can still feel like you belong, like you are part of something. Just being there might work in many cases. If you are unable to achieve that, you can easily feel like shit no matter the amount of interaction you have with others.
Kaiyou 7y ago
That heavily depends on the people you are spending time with, doesn't it?

184 points by brahmwg 7y ago

I think the real value of spending time with others is having a support network. I often don't do well in groups and simply don't enjoy it so I do a lot of things alone. But the major drawback is that I don't have much of a support network outside of close family. I am definitely worried that if something happens to me nobody will help me.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ycombinete 7y ago
There are proximate causes, and ultimate causes. You have identified an ultimate cause for social behavior. A proximate cause would be that we do it because it makes us feel better.

ghi5goio3qno4i3 7y ago

I've always wondered about these kinds of studies. For example, let's say we took a loner and gave them a 24/7 health monitor system that also helped apply preventative and corrective treatments, would someone live just as long as someone with a social support network? Presumably at some point in the near future we're going reach that level of technical accessibility for the average consumer, I would wonder perhaps if the results would change when systems like these become commonplace. I'd also be curious to see if the same thing regarding happiness could be said if someone had similar support networks that close friends bring, but without human interaction. For instance if same loner was to live out on an island alone but had reliable and easy access to all physical needs, lacked any serious threats to his well being, had enough to keep him busy, would he be just as happy as the those that responded in that report?

Ididntdothis 7y ago
I am not sure but this may work for me.
lonelappde 7y ago
If loneliness causes poor health habits, a machine that cures poor health habits would be an exquisite device for psychological torture - removing the possibility of death while preserving all the yearning for it. Asimov wrote a story once about that -- a selfish and suffering God who tortured brilliant souls by giving them eternal life so they would help God in God's quest for a method of suicide that would kill an immortal.
- ghi5goio3qno4i3 7y ago
  Do you happen to know the name of the story? And in the context of the story, would it not be plausible that they would acclimate to being isolated from their peers? There is precedent. In WW2 there were Japanese soldiers that remained fighting their war for decades after Japan surrendered, cut off from anyone that they could feasible interact with as they still believed they were deep in enemy territory, coming out only when their commanding officer relieved them of duty.
rjf72 7y ago
The BBC ran a phenomenal article here [1] detailing a wide array of data on the longevity of people through the ages. How long did higher class Ancient Greeks live? Ancient Greece dates back to starting around 3,300 years ago. In spite of their remarkable technological achievements they remained almost entirely ignorant of medicine. They relied on a system based around the 'four humors' - blood, phlegm, yellow/black bile. They had no clue about germs or any other basic fundamentals of modern medicine. Vaccines? You need to wait about 3,000 years. And their hygenic habits are the sort we'd find pretty questionable. For instance they obviously did not have rolls of 2 ply at their toilets. Instead what they had were sponges - butt brushes. One guy'd do his business. You'd come in, and give the well used sponge a swirl about in some water. For the fancy toilets, you might give it a swirl in some vinegar. And then you'd have your go. So how long did they live? The BBC article mentioned a 'census' of the longevity of individuals we now are familiar with. The median life expectancy was 72 years. Pythagorus - 75, Hippocrates - 90, Plato - 80, etc. Of course there's some some selection bias there, but there is also other evidence of their longevity as well. For instance in Ancient Rome one could not hold the office of Consul until reaching the age of 43, first office was not available until age 30. Another mildly intriguing part anecdote there is that the life expectancy declined pretty substantially for those born in the latter part of the civilization (after 100BC) to only 66 years. The likely culprit there is the installation of significant public piping systems... made out of lead. They inadvertently poisoned themselves for centuries. The article also goes on to analyze numerous other sources than tend to paint a recurring picture: there was high infant and youth mortality, but people who made it to adulthood tended to have a life expectancy not all that different than we do today. It seems to suggest that a large part of our increased life expectancy is not from the trillions of dollars we've spent on trying to find a [profit making] pill for everything, but instead from very simple things like access to clean water and food. [1] - http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-people-live-life-span-versus-longevity http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181002-how-long-did-ancien...

jerryuen 7y ago

I found this study to be a good reference but I question how useful some of the data are for 20-30 years old people nowadays because: 1. The study started in 1938, which is a very different time comparing to today. Young people has way more options to enjoy life alone such as traveling, playing video games, watching youtube by themselves just to name a few. 2. The participants are mostly 90 years old now and it is understandable that they prefer relationship comparing to 20 years old folks nowadays. 3. Also, I don't see any information about the amount of friends. Is it the same having 1 friend vs 100 friends vs 1000 friends on facebook? Probably not. 4. Just seeing some random participants in their 70' in year 2000 saying they are more happy with friends is not really useful for people today. It would be nice to see the chart moving based on different time (2000 vs 2019) for different generation group. 5. "the search for happiness can become a source of unhappiness", is kind of depressing and confusing. Is going out with a friend consider "search for happiness"? I "can become" a billionaire buying lottery tickets, does that mean I should or shouldn't buy the ticket? It is based on the success rate and this article is missing that data. I say you should evaluate from time to time if having friends or not (and how many) make you better or happier. I disagree that spending time with others ALWAYS make you happier. For example, I dislike traveling with large group of friends due to noise, planning and logistic issues.

cjpb 7y ago
You raise some good points. I also believe personality types play a large part, for example I'm an introvert, and while spending time with others makes me happy - that can easily be negated if I spend too much time with others or don't have a chance to come up for air (e.g. some alone time). Not to mention the personality types of others as well. I have introverted friends whom I can quite happily spend weeks at a time with (low energy, deep conversations, no awkwardness with silence), and on the other end of the scale there are friends who are extremely extroverted whom I cannot spend more than several hours with (high energy, shallow and constant changing of topics being discussed, a feeling of awkwardness when there is silence).
- jchw 7y ago
  I agree, being introverted definitely seems to impact the amount of time you want to spend with others, though I am maybe somewhat different in my preferences. I absolutely enjoy spending time with people, but even spending time with other introverted folks can be tiring for me, because sometimes I just want to sit in a quiet room completely alone. (Many of my other, also very introverted friends, disagree and can spend nearly all of their time with like-minded people. Which can be a little awkward.)

kodz4 7y ago

My plan is to run for President or get into politics atleast. Watching all these Geezers having the time of their lives in their 70s and 80s has made up my mind. Just look at Ralf Nader, Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh ranting and raving away with the energy of 10 year olds. It's that social mojo they are tapping into man. If I can wake up everyday troll the country, get a pat on the back from my buddies in my 90s...I think I'll die reasonably happy.

trevyn 7y ago
FWIW, I bet that there’s a lot of hormone replacement therapy going on in that cohort.
- balfirevic 7y ago
  That is... unlikely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_therapy I guess you meant this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_replacement_therapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_replacement_therapy
  - trevyn 7y ago
    Ah, thanks. I was thinking both growth hormone and androgens, though there may be other hormones and factors involved as well.

ed-209 7y ago

Better question: how out of touch must one be with themselves for this to even be a question?

lonelappde 7y ago
The mark of an intellectual is curious mind is to investigate even things that seem obvious, to understand their nature.
rofo1 7y ago
This is not obvious at all, especially the effects on health. Mental health - ok, that might be something that you can deduce based on examples (grumpy old solo grandpa that yells in the air - mental issues). But can you really conclude just from common sense that human relationships have effect on your _physical health_?

hq992 7y ago

I need to spend time with people. I feel miserable when I don't. I doesn't matter if it's quality time, I can literally be doing nothing useful but if I'm sharing that time with someone else then it's all good. The irony is that I frequently don't because of some circumstances that I live in, but I'm working hard to change change that.

rofo1 7y ago
> I doesn't matter if it's quality time Does it matter with whom? How about people openly disrespecting you under the guise of friendship? (I've seen this happen thousands of times, never understood why people tolerate it) How about backstabbers? How about people envious of you? My point is - does it really have the same effect on you, regardless of the quality of relationship?
slx26 7y ago
I'm pretty much the opposite. I can get along with people and I never have problems with others, but I just can't stand being with people. It completely drains me, and I tend to become depressed for a few days afterwards. It doesn't matter if the interaction is "pleasant" or not.
- effie 7y ago
  It is interesting how people are different. Perhaps some group evolution survival strategy? If all people liked being with other people, we would basicall end up all in single place and discover new places and new people far away more slowly. And if all people hated company, we could not build anything big such as towns or countries.

toomanybeersies 7y ago

It is just me, or does "at least once a month" not really seem like regular interaction with friends? I'd have thought at least once a week would qualify as regular. Once a month seems really irregular, I couldn't imagine seeing my friends only a dozen times a year. Is this common?

varjag 7y ago
It is irregular I agree, and it is common. Depending how you slice it though; does communicating daily over the net count as surrogate of interaction? At what rate?
xwdv 7y ago
This is just how it is when you get older. You’ll see friends maybe once a month for an average of 4 hours or so, basically 0.5% of your year. The rest of the time you spend sleeping, eating, working, occupying yourself with other activities that make up life. One day you might just wake up and realize all your friends are dead and buried, and if you are the last one left then you know you’re next. It’s over. Where did life go?
- tempsy 7y ago
  This really depends. Would say the biggest factor is kids. Also, a revelation I’ve had as a millennial gay man is because the rate of having kids is relatively low among gay men in particular, anecdotally gay male friends stay in touch at a higher rate than straight counterparts even as we get older. Not necessarily always a good thing, though. Especially in SF gay culture feels even more “Peter Pan” like.
irrational 7y ago
Daily was common when I was a teenager. Every other day was common in college. Weekly was common right after college. Now with a full time job, family, house maintenance, etc. I probably average once every 2 months or so and I'm amazed I even have that much time to spend with friends. I'm looking forward to retirement.

axaxs 7y ago

Anecdotally... I am, but I seem doomed. I'm not really antisocial. In fact, I can become overtalkative at times when in a social setting. But, given the option, I never seem to want to 'get out' and socialize. Though, when I force myself to, I am in such a better mood for a few days. Then, back to normal, and avoiding social gatherings again until the next time.

forgotmypw 7y ago
I think this is common. In small/tribal communities, this is often mitigated by group events on a regular basis, as well as smaller circles that all check on each other.
kr4 7y ago
I think the key to attain ever-lasting happiness is to commit ourselves to doing kind or selfless deeds as a habit [0]. Scientifically it's been observed that when we make someone happy the same region lights up in our brain [1] when we do something to make ourselves happy. Coupled with meditation that makes you more mindful so you can be more kind (kindfullness), you can attain a state of mind in which you can remain happy most of the time. The problems of the world will continue to be there but those will decreasingly have lesser impact on your inner state of happiness. 0: I track and share my random act of kindness (RAKs) on Black Lotus along with logging/measuring my meditation/chanting sessions (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rt.pinprickeffect.meditation&hl=en_IN https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rt.pinpric... ) 1: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/want-to-be-happier-give-m_b_6175358 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/want-to-be-happier-give-m_b_6...
- randomsearch 7y ago
  Sharing this because I said it the other day and it seemed to resonate. Happiness is overvalued. Meaning or purpose is undervalued. Happiness is based on a transition: something new, a change of circumstances, and is by its nature temporary. Meaning and purpose are long term. Seek meaning, not happiness.
  - 7y ago

cryptozeus 7y ago

May be not a popular opinion but I think we feel happier when we spend friends because it helps us forget about ourselves and inner dialogues. I don’t mean it in a sad or depressing way but our mind chatters all the time and it’s exhausting for the body’s resources. Spending time with others gives us break from that.

chewz 7y ago
All of man’s problems stem from his inability to sit quietly in a room alone. -Blaise Pascal
- rimliu 7y ago
  I was not aware of this quote and I don't really think that all problems are caused by this, but I did notice the said inability. It's is astonishing how people are unable to be in silence and with themselves. The constant need for some drowning noise: radio, TV, Youtube, just headphones with some music 100% of the time they are awake. As if they are afraid to hear something unpleasant if it becomes quiet for a minute. I, otoh, find it very meditative. And my recent hobby/passion/activity are the long (in time and duration walks— 30-100km). These are organized events, so lots of people go, sometimes in thousands (most choose shorter distances though), but I go alone and it is so… healing(?) experience. For 5-18 hours you are just with yourself and your thoughts. There is nothing you can do, just walk. Sure, one can listen to audiobooks or music, but I choose not to—it spoils the experience somehow.
- cryptozeus 7y ago
  Its a good quote but I don’t think society and world can support this. Why is there a room to begin with and why do you have to be forced to sit down in it. Completely counter intuitive. Same reason why meditation works for those 20 min.
  - chewz 7y ago
    It is just a quote from Pascal's Thoughts so more like haiku or ad hoc observation then a commandment. You don't need to sit 24 hours alone in an empty room - you just should be able to - this is my interpretation. It is like '- Master, how long should I meditate? - 20 minutes is enough. - But I don't have time for that. - If you don't have time then meditate for one hour.'

badrabbit 7y ago

In my experience no human is ok with being socially isolated for a long period of time. But difficulty with forming healthy social relationships makes the experience of attempting to "warm up" to others very unpleasant to people who don't get social exposure to begin with. Especially for anyone that performs extensive introspection it is very difficult and the experience can be interpreted as unhappiness. I think maybe being with others is most pleasant when one has a healthy relationship with one's self.

rofo1 7y ago
> I think maybe being with others is most pleasant when one has a healthy relationship with one's self. I don't agree with the rest of your points, but the quoted one is key. No studies to back this up, but I would say that you are decidedly better off being alone than being with (for lack of better word) evil people. These are degrees of evil that seem to be tolerated but that's another topic. In the end, it's literally all in our minds. It's technically in our control (balance of chemicals). Maybe we should devise a way to control them sentiently.
ur-whale 7y ago
>In my experience no human is ok with being socially isolated for a long period of time Citation needed. There was an article on HN a couple of weeks back about a guy who spent 20+ years alone in the woods and was perfectly happy for it.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  >> In my experience no human is ok with being socially isolated for a long period of time > Citation needed. for their experience?
  - Retra 7y ago
    It's a bit incongruous to talk about "all humans" when you haven't experienced them all. Asking for a citation is asking for a justification for this generalization, not for a citation about the experience itself. I mean, if the argument was "no human I've met can stand being alone for long periods of time", the obvious problem is selection bias: you don't meet people who like being alone.

pts_ 7y ago

Sounds like an echo chamber of thoughts. Also spending time reading a book at the very least is spending time with another person because it is written BY another person.

jvvw 7y ago

Hmmm, what about social contact with family members? How long does the interaction need to be to count? Would coffee qualify or chatting to other parents for five minutes each day on the school run? Once a month does feel like a very low threshold to me - but I can see how a lot of people's social contact could be dominated by family. It'd be interesting to distinguish between that and no social contact at all.

rahulkapil 7y ago

Groups make us relatively happier because we innately want freedom from self. Drugs, music, meditation, adventure sports also provide that.

mapcars 7y ago
>because we innately want freedom from self Ironically Self is the freedom. The problem is people haven't found what Self is and calling it all kinds of things. One simple thing to look at - does it give you absolute freedom unconditioned by time and space? If not - this is not yet true Freedom.
Tade0 7y ago
I can't relate to that and I think that a measurably large portion of the population can't as well. I like being with myself. So much so that I deliberately drive instead of flying so that I can have more "me time".

vectorEQ 7y ago

people looking for blanket solutions to happiness. there is no one size that fits all for that. find what makes you happy by listening to yourself.

mapcars 7y ago
Happiness is exactly the same in every human being - is just a certain type of chemistry. In which ways people find access to it depends on person, environment, society and your background - this is what is unique. But all these things are indirect and involve (unreliable) mediums. There are ways to access this directly and be happy and ecstatic every single moment without literally anything.
- rofo1 7y ago
  This is correct and congruent with what science knows as of today. I sometimes wonder how the world will look like when we would have evolved our science to (perfectly) control the ratio of chemicals inside us. Imagine, happiness on a click. Something like quick dopamine release without side effects.
  - mapcars 7y ago
    I would like to add that this science already exists for thousands of years in such sophisticated form that it does not require external chemicals but rather focuses on enhancing what our body can naturally produce. Imagining this gives you a bit of entertainment, but experiencing this makes imagination a childish game :)
  - effie 7y ago
    I am afraid such happiness would destroy us. Or make us a docile sheep with no ambitions. At least part of humanity accomplishments is because challenges induce chemical imbalances, they take you out of your comfort zone.

mapcars 7y ago

No.

ur-whale 7y ago

I doubt there's an answer to that question that applies to the general population. Some people are miserable without social interaction and others dislike it intensely. And even if someone manages to build some statistics that proves the general answer is "yes", I suspect said answer will be of very little practical use to a given individual.

rvn1045 7y ago

I’m currently spending time traveling and can sometimes go stretches without much interaction. I mostly stay at hostels and it’s wierd how that kind of communal sleeping arrangement makes me feel better even if I’m not actively interacting with people there. I think this was mentioned in the book Tribe by Sebastian Junger, about how we’ve evolved to sleep in large groups and that doesn’t really happen anymore.

slx26 7y ago
I guess a big part of the benefits come from being able to feel part of something. Even if you don't interact directly with others, you can still feel like you belong, like you are part of something. Just being there might work in many cases. If you are unable to achieve that, you can easily feel like shit no matter the amount of interaction you have with others.

Kaiyou 7y ago

That heavily depends on the people you are spending time with, doesn't it?