What I take from this article is that social interaction is extremely important to ones health, and it's something that we largely taken for granted. In the age of computers and secluded work environments, I think we need to be aware of the effect that even casual interaction has on our mental and physical health. I have some personal/anecdotal experience which back this research up and affirms my belief that communication and interaction with others is vital.<p>I've been working from home for a number of years. During this time I've on average spoken with and interacted with 1 person every day - my wife.<p>I occasionally go out, occasionally see family members, but the majority of my day-to-day work is quiet, alone, working at a computer.<p>- I have been more sick in recent years than ever before in my life. This is even compared to previously living in a major city and taking public transportation.<p>- I have been experiencing sharp mental decline especially in the last year. Solving complex problems is much more challenging.<p>- My memory is suffering. Even my wife has begun to notice, I forget little things and have developed an "aloof professor" disposition that wasn't natural to me.<p>- I now find social interaction more difficult. I'm more akward, and find myself over-thinking previously natural interactions.<p>- Lastly ... I'm far more depressed. I just don't enjoy much these days. I wake up, work, don't talk to many people.<p>The TLDR here is that I urge everyone to tend to their social garden. I let mine decay for too long, and I'm paying the price now. I am beginning the process of restoring connections, and getting out more, and I'm already noticing an improved mood.<p>Oh and I should mention - I'm naturally an introvert so this reclusive lifestyle was all too comfortable for me.
I find this perfectly credible because almost exactly the same conclusions were stated by Putnam in the classic _Bowling Alone_ [1]. A couple of pull-quotes from that,<p>> Dozens of painstaking studies... have established beyond reasonable doubt that ... [t]he more integrated we are with our community, the less likely we are to experience colds, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, depression and premature death of all sorts...<p>> ... the <i>positive</i> contributions to health made by social integration and social support rival in strength the <i>detrimental</i> contributions of ... risk factors like ... smoking, obesity, elevated blood pressure, and physical inactivity.<p>> ...as a rough rule of thumb, if you belong to no groups but decide to join one, you cut your risk of dying over the next year <i>in half</i>.<p>Putnam was surveying a large number of studies, not just the Harvard one.<p>[1] Putnam, Robert D, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046/" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Commu...</a>
I've got a simple hack I employ when in a new city. All through my twenties, I moved basically every year or two. Most of the time I had a network of family or associates to drawn upon before arrival. But often, I'd find myself a complete stranger, knowing not a single soul.<p>What I'd do is this: find a local diner, not a touristy place, but a real local institution and landmark. And then eat dinner there every single night at the same time. If constrained budget wise, look for the early bird dinner specials. Become a regular. Trade gossip with the wait-staff, complement the cooks on their sublime creations, chat up the little old ladies, engage the workmen about their craft. After a few weeks you'll find yourself invited to birthday parties and have the opportunity to give back your own time and energy, shovelling a driveway or helping out at a food drive.<p>A summer time variant: farmers markets. They typically have the same vendors every week and will remember you if you purchase a quart of organic honey and ask with genuine interest questions about their practise. Offer to get them started on Facebook / Shopify. Pretty soon, word spreads and you're no longer a stranger in town!
I don't know the nuances of this study but I am curious about the role of personality. I have lived much of my life with large groups of caring family and friends and I was miserable. I have lived parts of my life as relatively isolated and reclusive and was enormously happy. Have any related studies accounted for personality? 5,10,20% of the population might be the exact opposite?
The article seems to argue that healthy relationships CAUSE physical health.<p>How do you actually prove that the relationship between the two attributes is causal versus correlated?<p>For example, one could conclude, instead, that being in good physical health is the cause of successful relationships.
If you like this you may also enjoy "The Village Effect" by Susan Pinker[1]. In the book the author documents various ways in which social connectedness impacts our well being.<p>As this article and book say "loneliness kills", but what does that mean for those of us who want to live long and healthy lives? Do we need to start scheduling social time alongside gym time? Will a hug a day keep the doctor away? Should we join organized religions or get married strictly for the health benefits?<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22933077-the-village-effect" rel="nofollow">https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22933077-the-village-eff...</a>
Note that what they reportedly found is a stronger positive correlation between relationships and happiness than between money and fame and happiness (just based on the article):<p>"Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed"<p>So going after fame and money doesn't necessarily lead you to become unhappy (if we interpret the results as causal). Quality personal relationships just makes you even happier.<p>Also, I'm curious to what extent cultivating meaningful relationship serves as a coping mechanism for people with little money or social status (alternatively, focusing on making money and acquiring high social status to compensate for poor personal relationship development skills). My impression, based on my observations from people I've met in developing countries, is that low income / social status people tend to have richer and active communities and personal relationships. High status individuals tend to be lonelier. But this could just be confirmation bias.
The sad thing about this is, nothing of this is news. I did some health research in the 1990s and read tons of studies telling you the same things. One of the best predictors for subjective well-being was whether people had 3+ really close friends.<p>IMHO there is something wrong with this kind of research that rehashes known facts but doesn't really go any deeper than what was already known before. My gratulations to the researchers involved for getting the funding for such a long running study.
In Summary:<p>Our relationships and how happy we are in our relationships has a powerful influence on our health.<p>Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed.<p>Loneliness kills. It’s as powerful as smoking or alcoholism.<p>Good relationships don’t just protect our bodies; they protect our brains.<p>The key to healthy aging is relationships...
Bertrand Russell already put most of that in a book in 1930: "The Conquest of Happiness" [1]<p>[1] Some quotes: <a href="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Conquest_of_Happiness" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Conquest_of_Happiness</a>
A suggestion: take up a social hobby.<p>I taught social dance for a number of years. This is a great avenue for expanding your social interactions, getting healthy, building self awareness... blah blah blah. There's a great Argentine Tango scene in SF, just sayin, folks.<p>There's also joining a hiking group or a walking group. Great to get out, get active, and get social.<p>Or engage with an after school program, or mentorship organization.<p>You have, like, so many options.
Please take the time to actually read the book, this article doesn't do it justice.<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Triumphs-Experience-Harvard-Grant-Study/dp/0674503813" rel="nofollow">https://www.amazon.com/Triumphs-Experience-Harvard-Grant-Stu...</a>
While it does shed a light on the "quest for meaning", this study is not useful as long as we lack the understanding of the role of personality. I think a good analogy is researchers finding that a certain disease kills, but not knowing how do you contract that disease and what you can do to cure it. It might help you identify your situation, but not how to change it.
This reads like someone consciously decided "Hey, let's build the ultimate poster boy for bad statistical studies!".<p>1. <i>Sample bias</i>: "Why just study WEIRD [1] subjects? Let's do male Harvard graduates!" (Yes, half the study included inner city men, and one eighth of the duration featured women. It's still super heavily biased towards Harvard men.)<p>2. <i>Correlation is not causation</i>: "Hmm, health is correlated with relationship satisfaction. Could there be a common cause for both? Or maybe people like to hang out with healthier peers? No, the clear conclusion is that working on your relationships magically makes you healthier."<p>3. <i>Inconsistent data collection</i>: "Those '30s nincompoops were measuring skulls and handwriting. We'll stop doing that and take MRIs instead. But it's still the same study!"<p>[1] <a href="https://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/weird/" rel="nofollow">https://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/weird/</a>
This is a great article. I agree with the comments here that says working at home can really squish your mood. It makes me wonder about social security. I remember some comments here about if they got rid of it, grandma would have to move in. Well, according to this article, that might be the best thing for grandma! I work from home but have been staying with my in laws since we had a baby. It has been great for my mental health.
Assuming that good relationships imply good aging, I'd like to know how do they work. How much would differ a long relationship from 2 middle relationships to 7 short relationships?<p>If there's already any study about it, please share it with me, I'd love to read it!
Don't worry too much this study is bullshit<p>Step 1 - be an adult white male graduated at the beginning of an unprecedented and unique economic boom<p>Step 2 - graduate out of the most prominent college of the period<p>Step 3 - watch your asset grow themselves<p>Step 4 - enjoy the life without never have to worry about job security, housing, spending power<p>Yeah no shit sherlock. I guess being upper middle class does wonder to one life. Meanwhile we have to contend with constant worry about our future, our kids future and one misstep in our career path can and will landslide into a life of regrets.<p>And this study just say 'socialize' and everything else will magically go away.
TLDR: year 0 - 29 - Experience as much trauma, stress, and failure as you possibly can.
30+ - Stop giving a fuck about your unaddressed trauma and find a new reason to strive to stay alive.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_pruning" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_pruning</a>
I don't mean to be offensive or inflammatory, but how is this a discovery? Yes, money and success don't buy you happiness; living in a complete community is healthy. How was this not completely obvious?