“[F]ollowed 724 men since they were teenagers in 1938. (Approximately 60 men, now in their 90s, are still left.) The group consisted of men from various economic and social backgrounds, from Boston’s poorest neighborhoods to Harvard undergrads. (President John F. Kennedy was even part of the original group.) Over the years, the researchers have collected all kinds of health information, and every two years they ask members questions about their lives and their mental and emotional wellness. They even interview family members.”
“Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed. Those ties protect people from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline, and are better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes. That finding proved true across the board among both the Harvard men and the inner-city participants.”
“When we gathered together everything we knew about them about at age 50, it wasn’t their middle-age cholesterol levels that predicted how they were going to grow old,” said Waldinger in a popular TED Talk. “It was how satisfied they were in their relationships. The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80.”
> Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed. Those ties protect people from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline
I call bs, selection bias. If something bad happens, the "close relationship" ends faster than you can say "divorce".
If you manage to maintain close relationship way into retirement, yiu are very lucky. Of course you will be in great shape.
I'm not so sure.. I'm an introvert and a loner, so I often feel a bias against these kind of assertions. I want to be able to continue being a loner, feel good about it, exhibit resilience and self-reliance in a way that leaves me satisfied with my days, and invested in my intentions.
I don't have a lot of friends, but I have a few. I'm divorced, but I have a great kid and am still actively intertwined, familial-y speaking, with my ex-.
I wouldn't be able to say how all this affects my EOL quality and vitality, but I'm almost 50 and I don't feel diminished or negatively impacted by my life decisions or lifestyle yet.
I'm not "lonely" but I work to make sure I'm "alone" a good amount. I feel the urge to get social about once every 3 months and I can usually make it happen. I have a few places in the world where I travel, have friends, and can be super-social for a few weeks at a time.
If not determined by a lower bound, I wonder if they meant it qualitatively as we all quantitatively.
When these studies talk about the value of "close" relationships, they tend to point to properties like respect, trust, and emotional intimacy. Basically the relationship characteristics that someone with a secure attachment style tends to develop. (Which raises an interesting question, are they really finding that attachment style is the biggest contributor to happiness?)
It's not necessarily a function of how much time you spend with the counterparties, or exactly how many relationships you have.
If you have strong, healthy relationships with your kid, ex, and a friend or two you're probably already in the "good" column.
I'm not sure why this was down-voted. Poster is right about the correlation-causation. When I'm stress-free and stable, I have an easy time maintaining friendships. When I'm stressed out and overloaded, I don't have time for friends, and when I do, I sometimes drive people away.
I find having friends makes burdens lighter. Having a conversation with someone during a stressful time is a great way to gain perspective, get helpful advice, just talk though it, or at minimum, escape for a bit.
Maintaining relationships has nearly nothing to do with luck and everything to do with doing those things that are required to maintain relationships. Those come naturally to some people but for others they are learned skills that require some focus and effort. But if you fail it's almost certainly not because of bad luck, but rather because you decided that it was too much bother.
Yes, this is an aspect of secure attachment. Securely attached people prioritize relationships; relationships take time and effort and require reliability.
Insecurely attached people are usually not satisfied with relationships, and consequently don't prioritize them. The (possibly unconscious) expectation of a bad relationship is self-fulfilling.
Even people who work long hours can build close relationships with co-workers. The point of the article is not about working a lot versus less. It's about where you seek fulfillment and rewards within your life.
None of these guys led perfect lives. Alcoholism, abuse, death, divorce. But as they grew older the things they most often cited in hours of interviews as objectively making them happier, were the relationships they forged and kept along the way.
> If something bad happens, the "close relationship" ends faster than you can say "divorce".
I think it's important to note, close relationships can take forms other than marriage. I think even for those of us who are married, having your spouse being your only close relationship probably isn't the healthiest.
> If you manage to maintain close relationship way into retirement, yiu are very lucky. Of course you will be in great shape.
If you think both relationships and physical health are factors of luck, there's no reason to believe that those who have good luck in relationships would also have good health.
A link in this study does, in fact, suggest they aren't independent variables.
The suggestion isn't that they are independent variables, it's that the causality goes in the opposite direction. If you have poor health and/or fortune, your relationships will deteriorate as a result. It's a deeply uncomfortable hypothesis but seems quite plausible.
I'm pretty introverted and generally dislike (in a passive this person will probably not be a new close friend type of way) most people I meet. I've still managed to develop a handful of close relationships over the years. Even the ones I fucked up I can still reach out to and get a response if I need it.
Will everyone of them always be able to be there for me? No. But I'm not always there for all of them. My brothers about the only one I assume I could talk to about anything anytime. But just because other are not available to me during tough times doesnt mean I don't have a close relationship with them.
That’s kind of a pessimistic take, but you raise a good point.
Maintaining a close relationship can be difficult when faced with many hardships. It’s not unusual for a couple to divorce if a child dies or a partner has an addiction problem (for example).
So is it the close relationship that brings happiness, or does the fact you’ve maintained a close relationship reflect a life with fewer hardships and that’s what’s driving the happiness?
This isn’t a blanket statement by any means, many relationships are strengthened by hardships.
I'd love for more data on this. Is ability to maintain a close relationship also a predictor of ability to overcome bad things that happen? That is, is there some overarching skill or ability that those people have whose close relationships survive to 80 to withstand such difficulties, or is it luck?
If you are going to downvote this comment, provide evidence. It's an empirical claim and the direction of causality OP is proposing is totally plausible. Did the authors of the original study control for this?
I mean the quote is literally "relationships at 50" and "outcome at 80." It's not "relationships at 80." Causality is inherent in the 30 year gap between factor and effect.
I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that they were healthier in absolute terms, can also be that as the group aged they developed health issue at the same rate but having someone around more often helped by having them recognizing and testing for ailments timely
> better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes.
They went to Harvard (The non Harvard were added over 30 years later), I would expect 130 IQ compared to 140 IQ wouldn't matter as much as close relationships.
Compare 90 IQ to 110 IQ and I'd be surprised.
I'd also think it's absolutely harder to have close relationships with lower IQ's.
But it's totally correct, relationships matter, people who go to church live longer.
Atheists might be right, but until they work out ways for ongoing communal meetings that last throughout life they are also wrong.
Life's hard. Relationships are hard. The added burden makes having close relationships hard.
I don't think movies are correct that with struggles people come together. I think things happen out of necessity that better off people look at with rose colored glasses.
[edit]
The research doesn't seem to agree with this though.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/04/over-nearly-8...
“[F]ollowed 724 men since they were teenagers in 1938. (Approximately 60 men, now in their 90s, are still left.) The group consisted of men from various economic and social backgrounds, from Boston’s poorest neighborhoods to Harvard undergrads. (President John F. Kennedy was even part of the original group.) Over the years, the researchers have collected all kinds of health information, and every two years they ask members questions about their lives and their mental and emotional wellness. They even interview family members.”
“Close relationships, more than money or fame, are what keep people happy throughout their lives, the study revealed. Those ties protect people from life’s discontents, help to delay mental and physical decline, and are better predictors of long and happy lives than social class, IQ, or even genes. That finding proved true across the board among both the Harvard men and the inner-city participants.”
“When we gathered together everything we knew about them about at age 50, it wasn’t their middle-age cholesterol levels that predicted how they were going to grow old,” said Waldinger in a popular TED Talk. “It was how satisfied they were in their relationships. The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80.”