75-year study on what men require to live a happy life.

http://www.feelguide.com/2013/04/29/75-years-in-th-making-harvard-just-released-its-epic-study-on-what-men-require-to-live-a-happy-life/

by bagelicious • 13 years ago

93 50 13 years ago

feelguide.com

jobu• 13 years ago

200 people isn't a huge sample size, but the study is still very interesting. This part made me laugh:

With regards to sex lives, one of the most fascinating discoveries is that aging liberals have way more sex. Political ideology had no bearing on overall life satisfaction, but the most conservative men on average shut down their sex lives around age 68, while the most liberal men had healthy sex lives well into their 80s. Vaillant writes, “I have consulted urologists about this, they have no idea why it might be so.”

pwnna2• 13 years ago

It definitely is not a big sample size. However, considering that 200 people participated in the study for this many years.. I would say it is a big sample size just in terms of practicality (how many people would agree to participate in this? This study essentially becomes a part of their lives.. for all the time they live.)

devgutt• 13 years ago

and this is really sad

ekianjo2• 13 years ago

Yeah, the profile of people who would agree to participate in this study is certainly "biased". Not sure what you can do with the results.

Bsharp5• 13 years ago

Size isn't the only consideration.

If you sample 10,000 professional athletes, are you getting a sample population which represents 9-5ers and couch potatoes too?

cjc1083• 13 years ago

Might have something to do with the women those men are married to.

WalterSear2• 13 years ago

Indeed. And how they relate to them.

sp332• 13 years ago

Not all of the men in the study are married, or stayed married until they were 68-80 years old.

rwhitman• 13 years ago

The cohort of men who would have been undergrads in 1938 would have been in middle age at the time of the sexual revolution in the 60's and 70's. My guess is there was probably some political overlap with sexual-liberation, and that just unfolded in the bedroom into later life.

mathgladiator• 13 years ago

cache link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tuBAAbS...

justinsteele• 13 years ago

http://www.businessinsider.com/grant-study-reveals-what-make... Original article.

Bsharp5• 13 years ago

Harvard undergrads from the 1930's are not a representative sample of any group other than that specific group. The sample is in no way random or representative of the general population in the least bit. I can't believe that anyone thinks that this study has any meaning towards the population in general.

I'm sorry if that's overly cynical, but why is it so hard for Harvard academics to understand that the factors affecting people from the Mid-Western middle class, Southern urban poor, New England suburban wealthy, etc. are all very different? Not to mention the factors affecting various cultures internationally.

This is a study of similar people with relatively similar genetics, backgrounds, upbringing, values, wealth, intelligence, and overall lifestyle. How is this of any value to people who aren't like them?

EDIT: I'm realizing that the study's conclusions might be getting exaggerated in the media. I haven't read the actual study, so I'm not sure if the authors are claiming anything as significant as the media is.

AndrewKemendo3• 13 years ago

In general I agree with you that this is unrepresentative for a nation as a whole - see my other comment for that.

However one advantage of a sample like this is that significant independent variables like the ones you mentioned are widely held constant, which means that the evaluated variables will have a stronger power. So it is informative relative to others.

It would be best to take this study into context with other studies which compare educational achievement and poverty level.

Bsharp5• 13 years ago

Agree that there are other things this study may be beneficial for. I edited my initial comment to acknowledge that this study and its conclusions are probably being hyped by the media, and it's actual value and the limitations of the study may be addressed by the authors in the study.

Unfortunately, the authors' words will be replaced by journalists to get attention.

001sky2• 13 years ago

The sample is in no way random or representative of the general population in the least bit.

This is overstating it, and you are focused on culture. DNA testing could confirm a few points that would be 'representative' of the general population. If you avoid the overtechnical/literal interpretation, you are not saying so much. The implication this is otherwise 'anecdotal' data is probaly a bit too simplistics as well.

Bsharp5• 13 years ago

So you think "warm relationships" and IQ - two metrics used for some of the study's key conclusions - are represented similarly among this group as the general population?

I agree that it may be valuable for things such as health metrics, since it holds socioeconomic factors relatively constant, like another commenter on this thread mentions. But at the very least these people certainly had access to better health care than the average person, or at least higher-than-average intelligence to be able to handle adverse situations during their life. That alone should be enough to eliminate any meaning this may have towards people in general.

dschiptsov5• 13 years ago

but why is it so hard for Harvard academics to understand that the factors affecting people from the Mid-Western middle class, Southern urban poor, New England suburban wealthy, etc. are all very different?

In the East it is understood and named millenias ago. Roughly speaking, it is what they call [inner] "peace" or "balance" (of mind) which comes from realizations of one's own nature.

This is, of course, not mere abstract concepts, at least to realized people, and fundamental changes that a different state of mind propagates to the whole system (body) are easily observable and scientifically testable (chronic stresses, anxiety/personality disorders, etc.)

So, all these middle-class blah-blah people, loosely speaking, need to know thyself and [then] transform themseves.)

Bsharp5• 13 years ago

I'm sorry if this is ignorance, but they can scientifically test the effect of your state of mind on various psychological disorders? That seems like it's another topic of immense subjectivity. Isn't the objective measurement of one's state of mind, and even certain psychological conditions, in practice difficult/impossible to the point where studies are non-reproducible or highly debatable?

I really don't know, so if you have examples of such studies I'd be more than happy to become informed.

kristopolous• 13 years ago

http://www.theonion.com/articles/ah-to-be-young-rich-white-m...

avenger1232• 13 years ago

+1, Love it.

wybo• 13 years ago

There could still be reasons for picking such a sample.

1) In the far future, when most direct hardships are a thing of the past our lives probably resemble those of Harvard students more, than those of a random population sample in the 1930's

2) It is relatively easy to think of things that may make poor, disadvantaged, discriminated against, etc. people unhappy. And there is some data on this. While it was/is less clear for the advantaged.

3) Mentioned elsewhere, a study can gain discerning power if variables that vary a lot are kept constant. Similarly to how when doing a scientific experiment, one wants to control most variables besides the one one wants to test (simply makes the study more narrow, but deeper).

4) Practically speaking, a lot of psychological research is done on students, simply because they are within easy reach for scholars. Why Harvard students? Because that's a place where they would embark on something long-term like this 70 years ago.

5) More cynically, the scholars behind the study, and even after 70 years still the most powerful social demographic group, and probably a large portion of the most well-read, are in the sample they picked. So they sort of wanted to scratch their own itch first...

Finally, see the lovely series 7UP for a more random sample (allbeit much smaller, and British...)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058578/

cnorgate• 13 years ago

For what it's worth, I believe they took a sample of close to 600 people - 237 from Harvard, and another 332 who were less 'advantaged'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grant_Study

Yes, they were all white males. Not a great study if they were trying to definitively answer the question for everyone in America. But to suggest the findings have no broader applicability would also be short sighted.

mkhalil• 13 years ago

Who are you to say?

Okay, it maybe not be a one-size fit's all study, not sure if that study is even possible...but it's still really useful. How do you plan they do a 75 year study on todays generation? Time machine?

This is how stuff works. You do a study on one set, and do a study on another sample, and compare then.

And you obviously didn't read it because they didn't have similar lifestyles. The whole study was based on outcomes from different lifestyles/upbringings.

"How is this of any value to people who aren't like them?", even if this was only good to study on specific group, this question is completely useless. Why study any people of anytime? Romans? Greeks? Who cares we're not like them.

Also, stop the spreading the common notion that everyone at Harvard is the same. If you have a chance to actually visit the campus, I'd recommend it. It's fairly diverse. Don't worry...they won't bite.

ddinh• 13 years ago

Website is down. Google cache link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3...

The key point: In Vallant’s own words, the #1 most important finding from the Grant Study is this: “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.”

Scienz• 13 years ago

It's hard to take a "scientific study" seriously when the researchers claim the results to be some worthless platitude like "happiness is love." That is hardly an objective conclusion from the findings.

AndrewKemendo3• 13 years ago

I can't help but think that, given the sample chosen, the results are significantly skewed towards the WEIRD [1] population.

Not to say there aren't generalizable conclusions, however I would guess it is less informative for those living in poverty or in historically oppressed communities.

[1]http://lesswrong.com/lw/17x/beware_of_weird_psychological_sa...

dschiptsov5• 13 years ago

Vedanta + Buddha's teaching?) (not any particular Tibetan sect)

blinkingled2• 13 years ago

That might sound cliche but I wanted to add that it really helped me. I used to have a very negative/unhappy general conditioning but the basics of Buddhism have helped me make my life more pleasant/happy in general.

dschiptsov5• 13 years ago

A cliche is about chanting Om [mani padme hum] without any understanding or sitting on a cushion [in special yoga pants] for $30/h ,)

shire• 13 years ago

I agree Buddhism is not like any other religion based on fear but rather compassion, peace, happiness and most of all GRATITUDE. the number one key to happiness is to show gratitude for the little things we have.

javert3• 13 years ago

I find it amusing that the vast majority of the comments here are critiquing the methodology (nothing wrong with that), instead of discussing the conclusion: "Happiness is love. Full stop."

HN will be HN.

yetanotherphd• 13 years ago

It's actually really hard to get to the end of any article. I had to click the link again to see what you were talking about. But yes, Happiness is love, very profound.

avenger1232• 13 years ago

Similar message as the movie "Into the Wild". McCandless's conclusion by the end was that "Happiness is only real when shared".

Would definitely recommend this movie as it portrays McCandless's tragic story with great heart.

AndrewKemendo3• 13 years ago

Well, with a flawed or skewed methodology, the conclusion isn't nearly as relevant.

javert3• 13 years ago

Yep, that is a good point.

Kluny• 13 years ago

When you haven't got it, you want to ignore it.

ryanhunt• 13 years ago

I fully expected this entire article to contain only 3 characters, ending in ex.

_bfhp• 13 years ago

And for most of those 75 years, marital rape was legal.

narrator• 13 years ago

TL;DR Things will turn out fine if you don't become an alcoholic and maintain family relationships adequately. Going to Harvard doesn't hurt either.

Let me rephrase that, the most common way to screw up your life badly after you've gone to Harvard is to become an alcoholic.

sachdevap• 13 years ago

This article doesn't get anywhere close to encapsulating the study. I suggest people read http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/06/what-mak... for a better coverage.

annnnd• 13 years ago

Interesting study! The question is of course how applicable the results are...

I realize Facebook and Twitter are not around long enough to perform a similar study on their data, but I wonder if it would be possible to test just some of the findings using the data mining techniques?

75-year study on what men require to live a happy life.

Related Stories