14 ms·
A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life
- jheimark 13y agoStrong relationships make you happy. Not that suprising - we are social creatures after all. Those interested in learning more should read the original Grant study synopsis in the Atlantic http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/06/what-makes-us-happy/307439/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/06/what-mak...
- evangineer 13y agoHN discussion of the Atlantic's Grant Study synopsis: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=605207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=605207
- MarkMc 13y agoPaul Tough's book, "How Children Succeed" [1] has a great section on how mothering style has a large effect on offspring throughout their lives: "Parents and other caregivers who are able to form close, nurturing relationships with their children can foster resilience in them that protects them from many of the worst effects of a harsh early environment. This message can sound a bit warm and fuzzy, but it is rooted in cold, hard science. The effect of good parenting is not just emotional or psychological, the neuroscientists say; it is biochemical. The researcher who has done the most to expand our understanding of the relationship between parenting and stress is a neuroscientist at McGill University named Michael Meaney. Like many in the field, Meaney does much of his research with rats, as rats and humans have similar brain architecture. At any given time, the Meaney lab houses hundreds of rats. They live in Plexiglas cages, and usually each cage holds a mother rat, called a dam, and her small brood of baby rats, called pups. Scientists in rat labs are always picking up baby rats to examine them or weigh them, and one day about ten years ago, researchers in Meaney’s lab noticed a curious thing: When they put the pups back in the cages after handling them, some dams would scurry over and spend a few minutes licking and grooming their pups. Others would just ignore them. When the researchers examined the rat pups, they discovered that this seemingly insignificant practice had a distinct physiological effect. When a lab assistant handled a rat pup, researchers found, it produced anxiety, a flood of stress hormones, in the pup. The dam’s licking and grooming counteracted that anxiety and calmed down that surge of hormones. Meaney and his researchers were intrigued, and they wanted to learn more about how licking and grooming worked and what kind of effect it had on the pups. So they kept watching the rats, spending long days and nights with their faces pressed up against the Plexiglas, and after many weeks of careful observation, they made an additional discovery: different mother rats had different patterns of licking and grooming, even in the absence of their pups' being handled. So Meaney’s team undertook a new experiment, with a new set of dams, to try to quantify these patterns. This time, they didn’t handle any of the pups. They just closely observed each cage, an hour at a time, eight sessions a day, for the first ten days of the pups' lives. Researchers counted every instance of maternal licking and grooming. And after ten days, they divided the dams into two categories: the ones that licked and groomed a lot, which they labeled high LG, and the ones that licked and groomed a little, which they labeled low LG. ... The researchers ran test after test, and on each one, the high-LG offspring excelled: They were better at mazes. They were more social. They were more curious. They were less aggressive. They had more self-control. They were healthier. They lived longer. Meaney and his researchers were astounded. What seemed like a tiny variation in early mothering style, so small that decades of researchers hadn’t noticed it, created huge behavioral differences in mature rats, months after the licking and grooming had taken place. And the effect wasn't just behavioral; it was biological too. When Meaney’s researchers examined the brains of the adult rats, they found significant differences in the stress-response systems of the high—LG and low-LG rats, including big variations in the size and shape and complexity of the parts of the brain that regulated stress." [1] http://www.amazon.com/How-Children-Succeed-Curiosity-Character/dp/1452658145 http://www.amazon.com/How-Children-Succeed-Curiosity-Charact...
- auctiontheory 13y agoThe research on mothering style may be highly predictive, but unless I'm missing something, it isn't actionable or "useful."
- nostromo 13y agoIt's useful to parents.
- JDDunn9 13y agoBecause bad parents will become more nurturing after reading an article?
- Falling3 13y agoOr parents who want to be good parents will have one more data point.
- Amadou 13y agoSorry, I don't have a link for you, but I've recently read that one of the problems that many parents who live in poverty have is that they simply do not know what is necessary to be a good parent. The specific example was with respect to talking to infants - that talking to children who do not yet have the power of speech makes an enormous difference in the development of verbal and cognitive ability. Rich infants heard an order or two more words per day than poor infants due only to the fact that poor parents didn't know that it was important. There was no intent to neglect, just ignorance. The overwhelming majority of parents want to be good parents, some just need better information on how to do it.
- insickness 13y agoI'd like to see your data on this and whether the studies they did corrected for genetics. A lot of these studies like where parents talked to their kids more and the kids ended up being smarter ended up being proven false because there was no 'control' in these groups, children who were adopted, etc. Check out Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate. This talk sums it up pretty well: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate.html http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_b...
- j2kun 13y agoDoesn't "Harvard undergraduate" give a significant bias to the whole study? I'm not disagreeing with their claims, but claiming universality doesn't seem appropriate.
- cpursley 13y agoThis was my first thought.
- jonahx 13y agoCool study, but this is obligatory: Roger Meyers, head of Itchy&Scratchy studios: Allright, heads up you bunch of low- lifes. This is Abraham Simpson, and from now on you guys are going to take all of your cues from him. He's got something you couldn't get at your expensive, ivy-league schools: life experience. One of the post-college kids: Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
- narrator 13y agoThe big takeaway seems to be that as long as you don't become an alcoholic and are able to adequately maintain relationships you'll probably be ok.
- hzay 13y agoThe title really has to be changed to "A 75-Year Harvard Study on Men Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life". I clicked and was disappointed.
- ricardobeat 13y agoI wonder why limit the study to men. Weren't women allowed in Harvard in 1938?
- kps 13y agoNo, actually, they went to Radcliffe. Harvard did not admit women to undergraduate programs until 1973.
- jere 13y agoThey contribute to the confusion by showing a photo of a young woman in a field.
- kleiba 13y agoBeing a researcher myself, I can only guess the answer must be "long-term funding"? :)
- JDDunn9 13y agoThese are the kind of studies that make me think social-psychology is just a psuedo-science. If you want to understand human-nature, read Shakespeare over Freud. If you want to influence people, read Dale Carnegie over B.F. Skinner. I'll gladly eat crow if this study results in a 6% increase in loving relationships or a 5% decrease in alcoholism...
- jckt 13y agoNot actively disagreeing, but would you care to elaborate on why you think social-psychology is a psuedo-science?
- JDDunn9 13y agoIn his book (http://www.amazon.com/Statistical-Models-Causal-Inference-Dialogue/dp/0521123909/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1368755594&sr=1-5&keywords=causality http://www.amazon.com/Statistical-Models-Causal-Inference-Di...) Professor Freedman says one of the reasons the social sciences have had virtually no beneficial impact on society (as opposed to the incredible progress in the hard sciences) is that their "studies" have unsupported mathematics. They make too many assumptions, and their methodologies don't support their conclusions. For example, you can do a study on the top reasons teens use drugs, and in a decade those reasons have completely changed because of the shift in culture. The social sciences don't work well with the scientific method. You can't randomly select people, and you can't get them to make long-term changes to their lifestyle. Without experimental evidence, you are left with observational data, which is a nightmare to find causation instead of just correlation.
- auctiontheory 13y agoYou are conflating multiple issues here: whether social science studies are valid, whether the effects of social science are beneficial to society, whether passing some "scientific method test" is a requirement for an approach to be "good." To take one example (of many), all of consumer marketing is an outgrowth of social science - nowadays consumer marketing, behavioral psychology, and behavioral economics are overlapping fields which happen to go by different names. We might debate whether marketing has been "beneficial," but I don't think you can reasonably argue that all marketing doesn't work just because the math behind it isn't as rigorous as quantum mechanics. (Not that we completely understand quantum mechanics.)
- singular 13y agoAck. Reliable or not, I'm sure it was meant as a feel-good piece, but for people like me the quote:- "Vaillant’s key takeaway, in his own words: “The seventy-five years and twenty million dollars expended on the Grant Study points … to a straightforward five-word conclusion: ‘Happiness is love. Full stop.’" Is actually very depressing. I am 5'5" so have this (if you've not encountered it you are unlikely to be aware) INSANE disadvantage when it comes to dating - women can't stand short men. Seems almost certain to be a genetic thing. Basically, I've given up. There are major issues in the family too, so I am half-estranged from many close members of the family. So yeah, hopefully it's just false feel-good fluff.
- nijk 13y agoHave you considered dating non-traditionally-beautiful women?
- Falling3 13y agoTo be fair, there is really no mention of romantic relationships. And in my experience, short stature is not nearly enough to count you out.
- ImprovedSilence 13y agoAgreed.. I'd say just try to be genuinely interested in and caring for other people, your confidence will grow, you'll have brighter days, and it'll come. Attitude is everything. Just be a all around good guy, and doors will open (romantic, and otherwise). Also ya might not get a 9 or 10, but there are plenty of girls out there that don't mind. Heck, I've dated girls with 2" on me.
- singular 13y agoWishful thinking, I'm afraid. How tall are you compared to the average in your country? For somebody who doesn't have this disadvantage, it simply doesn't exist. I refer again to http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/lies/MessagesPerWeek.png http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/lies/MessagesPerWeek.png - it's not 100% but it's indicative. Also I refer you to walking down the street in your town. If you were correct, then there'd be a big variation (or at least one resembling the normal dist) in male height in couples you see. But in fact what you see is something of a skew...
- vlasev 13y agoIf you really want to know what it takes to live a happy life, read the book Flow [1] by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. It's the best book I've ever read on happiness and reading it has positively changed my life like nothing else. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Flow-Psychology-Experience-Mihaly-Csikszentmihalyi/dp/0061339202 http://www.amazon.com/Flow-Psychology-Experience-Mihaly-Csik...
- drumdance 13y agoI love this book and it likewise had a great effect on my life. That said, it's mostly affected me in career choices. It doesn't have much to say about relationships.
- vlasev 13y agoActually, it has a lot to say about relationships. If you are unhappy about yourself, you'll have a tough time being happy with someone else. Therefore, it is very important to work on yourself first, on your own issues, to improve your own confidence and self-respect. Only then can you expect to be happy around other people.
- danbmil99 13y agoSo... High earners scored higher on "warmest relationships". Which is cause, vs effect here?
- zalzane 13y agoI hate it when these things pop up because they turn problems into self-fulling prophecies. I hate being around my mother. I've never had a relationship with a girl in my entire life. I drown my sorrows into a mug of beer every friday. I barely get by as is - and have to work my ass off harder than everyone around me to get anything done. And now I come across this article that says it's likely I'll make 6 figs less than some other guy because of these variables that are hopelessly outside of my control. How fucking depressing.
- JacobAldridge 13y agoAlways worth remembering when reading these things: You are not a probability. 'On average etc etc' is vastly different from 'if A then always B'.
- mercuryrising 13y agoWhat makes you happy?
- zalzane 13y agoWorking, solving problems. Days where I can work on my side projects for the entire day without being interrupted are like a gift from god. I hate being around people because it comes down to either just sitting there and listening to other people converse, or trying to contribute to a conversation and making a fool of myself.
- jpdoctor 13y agoWhy is "solving the problem" of "trying to contribute to a conversation and not making a fool of myself" something that doesn't makes you happy?
- intended 13y agoAfter a point, its no longer a problem you are solving - it's saying "you/I am a problem" You could learn lots of tricks to be a better conversationalist, you could practice and make habits. But at some point you won't move the needle and you won't be changing. And if you've never seen the wreck of a human being that shows up when you define your natural (normal) inclinations as a problem, then you are fortunate.
- tokenadult 13y agoThis kind of correlational study is awash in survivorship bias, and may not even apply to age cohorts born in a different society in a different era. Most likely, the study results neither show what is sufficient for a happy life for all nor what is necessary for a happy life for anyone. It would take an experimental study design with a study population more representative of the broad range of present-day people (not just Harvard men) to find information like that. http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/43616/1/626014360.pdf http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/43616/1/626014360.pdf AFTER EDIT: A second-level comment below asks: Weren't women allowed in Harvard in 1938? No. Women have been able to attend Radcliffe College (very near to Harvard) throughout my lifetime and even before, but women being admitted as undergraduate students to Harvard only happened in the 1970s. http://www.college.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k61161&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup85886 http://www.college.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k61161&... (In other words, the girl I know from high school in Minnesota who attended Harvard was one of the very first to do so.)
- fragsworth 13y agoAgreed; this study seems to only find correlations between parenting and happiness/success in life. What if some children grow up in certain ways regardless of how they're raised, and this is what causes them to have shitty relationships with their parents? Maybe some kids don't get good parenting simply because they became little shits? And then this carried on into their lives?
- nitrogen 13y agoUnless you don't believe in a physicalistic universe, in which case there's not much point in science, a child's personality is formed entirely by its environment and genetics, both of which start with the parents.
- fragsworth 13y agoOnly one of these (environment, genetics) is something you have control over. At least for now.
- kps 13y agoLink is an annoying wrapper around http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/thanks-mom/309287/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/thanks-m...
- ender89 13y agoWhich has now been completely invalidated by the internet changing how we all live our lives.
- huggah 13y agoHow on earth can we usefully generalize from the experiences of white men born ~1918 who attended Harvard? I think longitudinal studies are massively important, and I'm all in favor of them, things like: "Alcoholism was the main cause of divorce between the Grant Study men and their wives" Don't really give us that much of a clue about how alcoholism (for instance) affects everyone else. I suspect it's similar; but this doesn't give us any data on anyone who isn't in a very very specific group.
- acchow 13y agoLinking to Business Insider for science? Seriously? Business insider is just barely on this side of tabloid.
- ohwp 13y agoRelated: according to this study in the UK alcohol is the most destructive drug: http://www.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/~mmiller/espanol/Variedades,%20politica/drogas_Journal.pdf http://www.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/~mmiller/espanol/Variedades,%2... [PDF]
- precisioncoder 13y agoScience. Correlation != Causation. In other words happy people are more likely to remember their relationships with others in a positive light. I used to think I had a bad childhood, I wasn't happy. Then I was happy and would rave about the wonderful childhood I had. Now I'm kinda in the middle and am satisfied with my childhood. Your current attitude affects your view of your own past.
- zaptheimpaler 13y agoThis is a longitudinal study. They were surveyed every two years.
- precisioncoder 13y agoMy comment still applies. People with happy lives will see their earlier years in a warmer light than those without happy lives.
- calinet6 13y agoI think the point is that they actually surveyed them every two years, so they weren't asking them to look back on their lives, they actually had that information while they were experiencing it. There may be other biases and errors, but I don't think your argument is valid given the method.
- precisioncoder 13y agoThey started surveying them when they were at Harvard from what I understand. That is still quite a bit removed from their childhoods. In any case the point about correlation != causation stands. The information is interesting, but I find that too often with these studies a correlation is taken. A conclusion is then made on the basis of the correlation, and then the conclusion is stated as fact. Anecdotal evidence follows and that's the end of it. The thing that irritates me the most is that it's just taken as truth and rarely if ever do people investigate further. I'd just love to have a discussion about the data and the possible implications and other explanations for the same data with judgement left up to the reader.
- pingou 13y ago"For instance, the 58 men who scored highest on measurements of “warm relationships” earned an average of $141,000 a year more at their peak salaries (usually between ages 55 and 60) than the 31 men who scored lowest". Why can't they give an percentage, do these people who scored high earn 40 % more or just 5 % ? I'm too lazy too check the average salary of Harvard undergraduate men at age 60.
- ogdoad 13y agoThey posed this question to the now over-aged Professor who started this study as a Bachelor's project. He replied: "Tenure."
- kailuowang 13y agoI was often asked "what do you believe then? " after I told people I don't believe in any religion. My answer is rather simple: I don't need to live on any belief. I live on knowledge. I know the following for a fact: love makes me happy, hatred makes me unhappy. And I want to be happy. That's enough. Now I can say it's not just knowledge, it's science.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y agoScience says believing (i.e. religion) makes people's lives happier, longer, more productive. So, why you don't believe in any religion? Science says it's good for you. Paradox perhaps?
- kailuowang 13y agoI was merely pointing out that now science also prove that love makes you happy. I didn't say that science says you shouldn't believe in religion. So what paradox are you talking about? BTW, I don't know about the science you mentioned, sounds fascinating. Does that definition of believing also include believing in Nazi, believing in Communism? Did it include the consequence of all the wars and terrorism driven religious belief (or any other none scientific "believing")?
- LekkoscPiwa 13y agoand I merely pointed out that science doesn't have all the answers. That's why science found out that to be happy you need to believe in religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_happiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_happiness The paradox is that you seem to embrace science but ignore some of its findings in your personal life. (i.e. you are not religious).
- davidkatz 13y agoHere's to another round of correlation/causation errors. Brace yourself.