A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life | Hacker News Reader

A 75-Year Harvard Study Finds What It Takes To Live A Happy Life

businessinsider.com

265 pointsawwstn169 comments

I 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.

Only if you are also a Harvard grad. For those of us who aren't Harvard grads, we'll make 6 figures below the unhappy group.

Sorry, but it's rather funny that what you deem depressing is not making 6 figs rather than being a lonely alcoholic. Maybe some pondering about happiness would do you some good?

> I drown my sorrows into a mug of beer every friday.

I don't think once a week makes him an alcholic.

Besides, honestly everything is futile anyway. So you can go play Frisbee golf with a group of friends, or stay at home in the dark drunk. At the end of the next century it doesn't matter, you'll both be dead. Happiness is fleeting and an illusion when seen. Get use to it.

That's just a lie. Ah, the beautiful false equivalence... you will be nothing in 100 years, but you're something now. You can choose to be nothing now as well if you want, except that you're not, because you're something while you're here.

You've been given about a half-century on this planet; you're one of the luckiest groups of atoms in the entire universe to have agglomerated into a self-replicating sentient body that is on the brink of voluntarily expanding into a next level of its evolution at a more and more rapid pace.

At the end of the next century, the human race will probably be, as a whole, more aware and more advanced than ever before. And you, of all the agglomerations of atoms in the universe, get to be a part of it. You get to contribute; you get to be a cell in this incredible human race. And even better, you get to exist at a time when all the humans on earth are connecting to each other and spreading information and knowledge faster and better than ever before. We're becoming a human organism, we're cells in a great life-form, neurons in a giant brain; we're going to evolve as a planet now, faster than biology could ever dream.

Happiness is love, and love is the glue that binds us together like neurons, each knowing if only instinctively how important the others are to the great network we're in. You can isolate yourself and think that you don't matter and everything is futile, but if you do that, then and only then will everything actually be futile. Otherwise, you are very real, the time you have is real, your life is real, what you choose to do with it is real, and the results will—in some small or maybe big way—evolve the human race.

To me, that matters.

Happiness is not an illusion, it is actual neurons firing, hormones rushing and what not. Of course from an abstract standpoint it is meaningless, but you can catch the ball nature has thrown you and play. There is a reason humans haven't gone extinct yet.

I don't know if this will make you feel any better, but this study probably didn't teach us much that we couldn't have simply assumed would be true. If you were to do a study on group of men who have a bad relationship with <fill-in-the-blank> and <drink/eat/smoke/exercise> <too much/too little>, I would bet that these men would be found, on average, to score lower on any measure of success and would have a higher incidence of every problem you looked for. This is because problems always seem to cluster, they never occur independently. It's like the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Men that argue with their mothers and drink too much are probably a group of miserable men. Why are they miserable? Maybe because they have lots of problems. I don't know if it's a real phenomenon that bad things tend to happen disproportionately to a few unlucky people, or if it's just a statistical illusion. But I am never surprised when a study finds a correlation between two negatives. It's a given.

What makes you happy?

Working, 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.

I've found that most people vastly underestimate the helpfulness of a good therapist.

Your fear of making a fool of yourself smacks of an irrational level of insecurity that may stem from dysfunction that you may not be aware of.

A good therapist can help you get to the root of that dysfunction and teach you exercises and attitudes that could make you feel immensely more confident and happy.

If all else fails, a therapist will recognize if you might need pharmaceutical help.

I've seen therapy work for multiple people in my life - but addressing dysfunction isn't something that you can deal with on HN. You have to seek out a professional and commit yourself to working hard on getting better.

Why 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?

Because there's no cerebral solution to that problem short of going out there and making yourself look like an idiot until you don't looks like an idiot anymore.

I think the first step is to stop caring about looking like an idiot. The trick is to be confident that you're not actually an idiot. Then you can look like one, and people can laugh at you, and you can laugh right along with them because you do look rather dumb, but you never think for a moment that you actually are an idiot. Tell yourself enough that you don't care what others think about you, and that what really matters is what you think about you, and you'll start to believe it and actually have that kind of confidence. If you don't have it, fake it until you have it ;)

Why do you need a cerebral solution? Isn't trial by fire good enough?

Everyone looked like an idiot as a child learning to socialize. Enough exposure, criticism, praise, etc will curb your actions away from looking like an idiot. You just need to adjust your self image and realize that looking like an idiot at that specific time does not mean that you can't learn adapt and look like a socially adept human at a future time.

I've heard it suggested that a very good way of practicing conversation with people you don't know is to talk to people who are paid to talk to you - shop assistants, baristas, waiters, etc. There is no social cost in getting it wrong, and it helps build conversation skills

I haven't tried it myself, but it's plausible

Now, I find myself to be a pretty darn introverted mofo internally (I line up perfectly as a full-out INTP on the Myers-Briggs scale if that means anything to anybody), but I've found that socializing is just as useful of a skill as programming or playing a musical instrument. Sure, I find it to be significantly more tiring than either of those two activities, and I'm not nearly as proficient at it as I'd like to be, but it is a skill -- not some distant genetic trait that you might be hopeless to turn on -- therefore, it can be at least somewhat learned. The issue then is just about wanting to learn it.

I'm not about to be condescending about it and suggest something along the lines of "if you really cared/wanted it bad enough... blah blah blah", because I find statements like that to be annoying and unhelpful. I merely wish to bring awareness. Learning is a skill, and equivalently but more to the point: learning how to learn any specific skill, is a skill. It is OK to be inexperienced in this area, we all start off this way; it is merely being aware of this situation that seems to set mindsets apart. This inability to learn a skill that involves "looking like an idiot" as part of the learning process, signals inexperience with learning skills that require noticeable/major discomfort to acquire. And again, that is OK -- it makes total sense. The thing to realize is, that is all it is: discomfort. It's not really 'dangerous' regardless of how much it feels that way, it's just as benign (and possibly as annoying to some people) as developing callusus on your fingers to play guitar. It's a bit of a painful process, and you really can't get into the 'flow' of playing for extended periods of time until you develop them, which requires building up the calluses in baby steps; because otherwise you'd just be cutting up and burning your fingers up trying to go any longer. So if it helps at all, just look at it as building up 'social calluses'. It'll hurt, yeah, I acknowledge that. But hey, that's what's involved if you wan't to learn how to play. I mean, You might prefer to learn other instruments like piano because they doesn't involve this painful step, and you might get pretty darn good at pickup up those other instruments, but at the end of the day, you still wouldn't have learned how to play the guitar.

As for the depression, I've been completely and deeply suicidal many a time in my short life (used to be an annual tradition practically), and I really can't give you a quick answer for it unfortunately. The best thing I found is to just keep busy, but you seem to have discovered that strategy on your own already, so kudos! I know it took me a while... I believe there are many reliable findings about meditation reducing depression+anxiety (possibly as a result of its regenerative abilities with regards to 'willpower'), but meditation is really just an intense exercise in attention. And attention I believe, has also been found to invoke a state of anxiolytic relaxation. Therefore, keeping busy makes sense as an anti-depressive mechanism. I wish I could produce some sources on this, but I'm already procrastinating quite badly on a paper I need to have done in about an hour, I just felt I needed to leave a response here before I forgot. Hopefully I was able to help.

Imagine that learning social skills from scratch is like tuning a feedback loop. You need to have something in the loop to begin with in order to tune it. If you're a child, good news, you can just feed your imagination's random number generator into the loop and see what happens. If you're an adult though, you might find yourself with absolutely no starting data on which to iterate, and your internal RNG has been forcibly shut down by growing up.

It's like trying to run Newton's method with NaN as your starting value, or like you're trying to follow a linked list, but your ->next pointer infinitely redirects to itself.

That's where I was at not so long ago until I realized that if you have no starting data, just copy over some data from your peers :) Look at how others behave socially and start with those bits, it's not going to be easy but it is something to use until you have enough to bootstrap your own thing.

And remember even if it is weird, play along, things get better as you go. Keep making conversation (and always smile), it's better to be the awkward guy trying rather than the weird/silent/alone guy in the corner of the room :)

Start by appreciating what makes you interesting to yourself.

After 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.

Much of socialization is making a fool of yourself---and other people spending time with you anyway. I socialize to get out of my head, and it sounds like you could use it too.

Working hard, and doing a job well done.

Always worth remembering when reading these things: You are not a probability.

'On average etc etc' is vastly different from 'if A then always B'.

Why is that depressing? Odds are its not those six figures that make them happier.

This 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

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&...

(In other words, the girl I know from high school in Minnesota who attended Harvard was one of the very first to do so.)

Agreed; 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?

Unless 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.

Only one of these (environment, genetics) is something you have control over. At least for now.

> became little shits

no child just becomes a "little shit". It takes a lot of time and effort to create one.

Children have some certain negative aspects in them and have some positive aspects in them. Parenting is all about making good aspects stronger and negative aspects weaker.

Recently, my child started yelling like crazy. She will just start screaming at a restaurant thinking it's fun (3 year old). Or just yell at 3 am. I could yell back and make this negative aspect stronger, instead I enrolled her to the music classes to channel all this yelling energy into something good. Guess what, she yells less.

It's all about the parents.

I couldn't agree more. There's a saying in Hebrew: "There are no bad kids, there are only kids who feel bad."

It really is.

There are people who believe people are predestined and struck in stone, and that there are good people and bad people, and that if someone is bad or lazy or has bad characteristics there's nothing that can be done, it's just who they are.

Those people are wrong and make horrible parents.

The world isn't black and white. We're born with predispositions. Upbringing has some influence. But consider that all the parenting in the world can't make a retarded kid smart. How do you know there aren't other things in our brains that are difficult or can't be controlled?

I absolutely agree, I think there definitely are.

I'm not saying there are only 2 kinds of people, but that there's sort of a divide. This divide appears to be nearly dichotomous, and it seems to follow some pretty fundamental beliefs about humanity and our place in the world. It's no doubt a stochastic process leading to such a divide, and it's no doubt continuous, but there's a line where if you're on one side, you sort of think it's okay to use some negative reinforcement with people and that they need that to grow stronger (a self-reinforcing idea), and if you're on the other side you sort of think it's not really okay to punish (also a self-reinforcing idea), and the self-reinforcing nature of those ideas leads to their internal reinforcement to become stronger, such that we really do get clustering of individuals who all hold this strong belief about people, and reinforce each other.

There are very few people in the middle of this, and while the child and the personality is not a dichotomy per se, the belief about punishment vs. reward; negative vs. positive reinforcement—is quite dichotomous, not because the world is black and white, but because of the effect of internal reinforcement, groupthink, and time. People gravitate to one side or the other, and having a middle way on these sorts of issues is not attractive to the human psyche or, as it turns out, the way ideas naturally propagate and grow within people.

Politics works precisely the same way, and indeed shares many of the roots of this very opinion on humanity: does punishment work better, or does reward work better? Do we leave the poor to fend for themselves, or do we proactively help them due to their circumstances? It comes down to the way people believe humans work, and again, these ideas gravitate naturally toward opposite ends.

It's quite sad, because reality really is somewhere in the middle, and an effective strategy would take into account the reality of human behavior in addition to the side effects of negative reinforcement and the benefits of positive reinforcement and result in a well-balanced type of policy or parenting style that's scientifically sound and based on truth. But that's not how we work with our offspring; we do what we believe is right and try to do better than our parents, and maybe if we read here or there that this or that is good for the kid, we'll take it into consideration. I truly believe most parents are trying to do what's best for their child, if they can, and it's ignorance and false beliefs about people in general that leads them to make mistakes. I think that's the gist of it.

So you're right, the world isn't black and white, I appreciate you opening my eyes to the truth of the middle way and the truth behind the incomprehensible layers of complexity. It's just fascinating to me how people form ideas, and especially how dichotomous ideas take hold and self-reinforce, because I really think they do. I think it's one of the great problems we could solve in society in the next few dozen years with great benefit, but there's probably not anyone with the right mindset to study it correctly.

Very interesting post. I definitely agree with you.

There are two additional points I'd like to make.

1. >does punishment work better, or does reward work better?

There are always two "variables" when dealing with a situation: a) person you're dealing with b) situation you're dealing with For situation A that involves Henry, you know that punhishment works better. For situation A that involves Jonathan you will know that reward works better. For situation B it might be just opposite for the given persons. So, you just adjust to get results. It's not like you are in the punishing camp and won't reward in another situation involving the same person or different one. It's all about results sometimes. You want to get your stuff done or your kid do what you want, right? Not just to punish or reward. That would be really hollow personality type. At least in my book.

2. >It's just fascinating to me how people form ideas, and especially how dichotomous ideas take hold and self-reinforce, because I really think they do. I think it's one of the great problems we could solve in society in the next few dozen years with great benefit, but there's probably not anyone with the right mindset to study it correctly.

Well, this problem has been "solved" by politicians who are currently running show in the West. Ever heard of the term technocrat when talking about politicians? Left more efficient with the social issues? Let's have left there. Right more efficient with the economy? Let's do what right advocates there. What you described is what technocrat politicians believe in and do. And is the reason why our societies and economies are so messed up ;-)

If you were right Nature wouldn't make us to take care of our offspring for so many years. Can't quote the exact source at that point but I remember that I was taught at school that one of the charasteristics of homo sapiens that you will not find among other mammals is that we take care of our children for so long.

There must be a reason for which homo sapiens take care of their offspring for 10+ years. Wouldn't you think?

If it's irrelevant as you seem to claim then why we would be "wasting" years of our lives that could be spent more effectively?

You've set up a false dichotomy. I guess I have to reiterate, "the world isn't black and white".

Suppose that 90% of our children can be made better through proper upbringing and 10% can't (by today's social standards of what is "better"). We'll still evolve a natural desire to try, because there's a huge change it will work properly, but sometimes it won't.

I didn't even claim "this is true", I only suggest that this cannot be dismissed unless we see enough real evidence that proves otherwise.

>Suppose that 90% of our children can be made better through proper upbringing and 10% can't

The problem you have instantly with this type of analysis is to know if you really can't for sure. I didn't speak till I was 5. I have rare genetic disorder (1 in 50,000 odds). At preschool I was labeled 'retarded' and 'not fit for primary school' by a teacher. My mom never gave up. I had the highest GED score in high school. I was vice-president of a Student's Union at the University. I work just a regular job, but I live comfortable life of a professional.

How would you know who is a hopeless case and who is not? There is no way to know unless you try. Just like with starting a business, lol, you won't know if you're going to succeed unless you try.

That's why we have moms Man. Because they always try and believe no matter what. And I think I'm a good example why Nature made them this way.

Ack. 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.

I'm 5'4", chubby, prematurely balding, and under 30, and I've been in long term relationships with several awesome women.

There are certainly disadvantages to being short, probably especially in the dating realm. Big whoop. That's not what's preventing you from dating anyone.

I never said preventing. It's a massive disadvantage. I could (+ might) write a longer piece about the whole subject as there is more to this than height but it's quite surprising what a difference it makes.

If you can overcome that disadvantage, all power to you, but it doesn't change the state of affairs.

I refer you to this graph - http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/lies/MessagesPerWeek.png

It's a rough analysis but shows a clear female preference based on height. Certainly an indicator.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, I mean no harm, just asking you to consider...

There are plenty of women out there who would be happy to date you. You are the one filtering them out. Consider women over 40 and women with children. Those groups have huge problems finding men. Works both ways.

Sure, actually this is far better reply than most here, sorry you got downvoted. You at least accept the premise.

I hate to sound like a terrible hypocrite, but I do have to apply filter enough that I'd be able to honestly say I found them attractive. My standards are actually not all that vastly high to sound like a terribly shallow person.

As for women w/children, I wouldn't on the basis of having had a step parent during my upbringing and the various weirdnesses that involves so I'd rather be single than be in that position.

I'm 5'3", it is an insane disadvantage. Even if that's false, no amount of words will change the belief -- it's experiences that change that.

But we both know that, no matter how fucked up you are, there are girls who would consider you "good enough". Your job is to go out and find out what those girls are like. One of two things will happen: either you're fine with those girls; or you'll suddenly find a massive motivation to improve yourself (for an endgame of what's possible, see Seth Green)

Your only problem right now is ignorance. Go out and change that.

At last somebody who gets my point.

I've given up because of this and other factors. But I respect your positivity and you're right there is more to it.

To be fair, there is really no mention of romantic relationships. And in my experience, short stature is not nearly enough to count you out.

Agreed.. 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.

Wishful 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 - 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...

ooof... or be a debbie downer the rest of your life, and focus on all the negatives you can't control, and be a total victim. Maybe there are other reasons unseen to yourself that explain your lack of romantic partnerships.... you sound like an 8 grade anorexic girl, complaining about being fat and unpopular. Man up and learn to play with the hand you've been dealt instead of making excuses and searching for validation in all the wrong places. You've got one shot at life, it's up to you weather you want to brood over things you can't change, or keep your head up and make the most of it.

I don't like to waste my life on internet arguments (nicely in alignment with your comments, there), but seriously?

I hate to join the 'hacker news is going downhill' parade, but this is pretty bad. Go read http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html :-

    When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g.:-

    "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Note you didn't even respond to my points, you just gave me the minimally informed personal attack bit.

I wrote a fair bit here in response to your 'points', but to be honest your lack of civility doesn't warrant it. Feel free to disagree, but try + do it politely, this isn't reddit.

Maybe try another country where people are shorter and men from the US are more attractive to the local women. I'm an average height average looking fellow from Canada. But living in Latin America I strut around like a Norse god. I'm dating a model right now - I never thought I'd say that.

Yes, this is indeed something I've considered :-)

I'd be completely average height in Mexico, say.

wat. you're 5'5". that's what's stopping you from being in love? what in the fuck does that have to do with ANYTHING. that's not a question.

you need to get out of your head, your bubble and get friends first. good friends that can help you get your head straight. no one cares about your height bro.

Except there is plenty of evidence that women have a massive preference for tall men. Just go round asking some women, seriously. Or check out dating sites/columns. Height is a biiig thing.

How tall are you can I ask compared to your national average? To somebody without this disadvantage it simply doesn't exist.

It's not the only thing, but it's a MASSIVE thing.

I'm 6'2", have a few friends who are short, in the 5'5"-5'8" range, and have talked about this with pretty much all the women I'm friends with. Yes, this is true, you're right. It is almost certain to be a genetic thing. Everybody here saying they know some short guy who gets lots of girls or is a short guy and is happily married, well, this is not actually what the parent is saying. He's just saying there's a huge disavantage in being short. He's right. Try this mental test the next time you see a very short, slim, but quite good looking guy. Now imagine him in a 6'3" build. It to men who do this mentally, it drastically changes the appeal this guy has. This was told to me by a woman friend, and it happens everytime I think about it. Also, the Tom Cruise example is a bad one. Women see him in movies, where you can't tell their height. If you're successful, smart, a good person (or much more important: not a jerk), you can find a good person and have a relationship, a meaningful, lasting one, with her. But if you base your romantic success in how easily you get dates/get laid compared to taller guys, then you'll probably end up frustrated.

I am short (5'6"). Never had a problem (except maybe as a kid). My wife is taller than me.

I am sure you will be fine. It's all about the attitude.

I had a very beautiful girlfriend during uni + didn't believe this was a problem at all. Then that ended + it became quite obvious.

Just because you managed to overcome the disadvantage, doesn't make it not a thing. It's not all about the attitude (or rather apparent confidence), it's partly about it.

To put this in perspective, you're taller than Tom Cruise.

Sigh. Sure, if I looked like/were as confident as Tom Cruise I could compensate for the height disadvantage. But it's still a disadvantage.

The interesting point with these sorts of responses is they follow the fallacious logic of 'here is an anecdotal example of somebody with your disadvantage succeeding due to separate advantages, therefore you don't have a disadvantage at all.'

I agree. I'm also in the short category, so I understand your pain.

I don't know about his confidence, but he's got really good looks. He doesn't have much acting talent (in my opinion), still he is so successful in his field. I suppose looks can take one far, really far.

Tom Cruise is 5ft 7in

... In platform shoes, standing on a box. Some special effects don't need CGI :-)

No, I'm pretty sure he's actually 5'7" and the platform shoes make him taller.

Some of it may be attitude. Others can read insecurity, which can be a big barrier to establishing solid relationships. I think it's true that many women have a bias against shorter men, but after getting to know someone can see that it was a shallow prejudgment. I can admit to stating a preference for men over six feet, but have dated men not even an inch taller than my 5'6" self. In the end, other things mattered much more than one uncontrollable characteristic.

"I can admit to stating a preference for men over six feet, but have dated men not even an inch taller than my 5'6" self."

QED.

I think it's less of a conscious thing a lot of the time, rather it's an ingredient in sexual attraction + 'chemistry', so naturally you women often feel more attracted to a taller man (if that doesn't sound terribly condescending, I don't mean it to be!), in the same way we men prefer symmetrical faces and a certain hip-to-waist ratio. We usually wouldn't put it that way, but it's inbuilt.

It's only 1 factor of course. I think of it in terms of chemistry prerequisites - once you get through those then the real stuff that matters comes into play, but without it you're never going to advance beyond the friendzone.

I just had a couple stay at my place from Airbnb. They were both under 5'5. I don't have anything beyond this anecdote, but this alone must prove that someone is out there!

Sure there are exceptions, but as a rule, he's right.

I'm slightly taller than average, but even I have noticed this phenomenon. It is ridiculous how many single women say they exclusively want a tall man, they want to "look up" to a man. Even the shorter-than-average women want a man of at least average height. On dating sites like PlentyOfFish I've seen ~5' tall women say that they are only interested in men at least 6' tall. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that height is in the top 3 discriminators that women have for men (weight, race and baldness being in contention for the other two spots).

The short guys (as well as chubby, bald guys) that I know who have been successful with the ladies have all been comedians. If you can get past their firewall of physical characteristics, making a woman laugh is the root password to her lady parts and her heart. Sucks if you are short, fat, bald and not very funny though.

Ok here is another one:

I am 6'2 weigh 190 and I haven't had a significant other in 2 years. Seriously, it's confidence and understanding what your standards should be. I know that seems patronizing and an over simplification but these rules seem to hold true across couples. The greater exception that we like to notice more often is "How did that guy/girl get that guy/girl".

I don't doubt that women on a dating site say those things in majority. But there is a strong minority that don't look for those things.

There is no numeric measurement for personality in online dating. If women had to balance height and personality in online dating it would reveal a much different picture.

Just like real life.

Read The Game. I've met Neil Strauss in real life and he's 5'6" on a good day. His fiance is beautiful, smart and taller (plus, she likes to wear heels).

Or, don't. People certainly do succeed based on PUA techniques. But they're confusing the causes of their newfound success.

This will get you 80% of the way there: 1) Volume, volume, volume. 2) Look to have fun, not for your soul mate. If something's not happening, BFD.

And this will get you to 150% of the way there: 3) Do interesting things, have interesting stories to tell, and meet interesting people.

and the 80/20 rule applies to your advice too, it's mainly just the volume.

> Read The Game.

Please do not do this if you value reducing the amount of misery in the world.

The Game is a superficial childish half-assed douche version of the truth.

The truth is you have to be confident and genuine, treat women like people, meet a whole lot of them, and actually try to find someone you get along with and like.

There are no shortcuts to that; you can't simulate it. The Game might get you to fake-it-til-you-make-it, but that's about it.

If you've actually read the Game you know he talks about this in the latter third of the book.

And fake-it-til-you make it is just another word for practice.

I'm somewhat biased because I know Neil and go to his intensives. But they are extremely good and I've gotten a lot out of them. Further, I decided to meet him because of the Game.

It's all in your expectatives. Stop listening to what people say and start acting as you really want. For some insight look at a youtube channel called "simple pick up" just three guys getting telephone numbers from guirls doing the most ridiculous or supossedly impossible stuff. Just be confident in youself and make them laugth.

The most ugly, short guy (ok, almost the most) I have seen in my life was the biggest playboy I have ever met. He could have any women he wanted.

It would be long story, but when observing him one thing came to mind: he knew how to talk to women. Just imagine that the guys nickname was a "Beast". He was that ugly. I've seen him just once in my life. We went on a trip in College and his College was on a trip at the same place. It was a 3-days trip to the Mountains. He really had a lot of girls every night. Don't ask me how, I don't know. It was (and still is when I think about it) like magic to me. All the dudes where in a deep wow-factor. I mean we - of course - were jealous, but also curious. How he does this? Like he could have put some spell on these girls. Never seen something like that before in my life.

One of the friends from college - a girl - told us she used to go to the same high school as him - so of course guys started asking her all the questions about him. She didn't look comfortable to talk about it, but admitted the guy had slept with most pretty girls in high school, plus some (married!) teachers. When someone asked her if he slept with her too she just gave us that look.

The only explanation I could have thought of is this proverb: Men fall in love through their eyes. Women fall in love through their ears.

Look at Hawking. He has wife, he has kids, grandchildren etc.

Looks may be important for women but not as much as other aspects - self-esteme, wealth, being popular, etc. They crave powerful men. Or the ones who convince them they are. Or they really like the way they are bulshitted, when the bulshitter is really skilled. Or I don't know. But really, your looks is non-factor, trust me.

Again, the exception to the rule doesn't make it not (generally) true.

"Men fall in love through their eyes. Women fall in love through their ears."

And people love to tell themselves convenient stories that may or may not be true. If that proverb were really the case you'd expect to see a full variation of height difference in couples but no, you nearly always see a woman ~ 2 - 3" shorter than the man, so it's certainly a factor.

Additionally you see a general increase in height in populations with decent nutrition over time which is arguably due to sexual selection.

Explain to me the 'TALL, dark, handsome' cliche?

There's plenty of evidence that height is a thing. As I said before, it's not 100%, but the fact it's a big factor is undeniable. It's not everything, but it's a massive factor, even if other factors can compensate to some degree.

>>>It would be long story, but when observing him one thing came to mind: he knew how to talk to women.

That is what matters. Not height or appearance or income. FFS, the guys I've seen have women flock to them! It's like they're magnetic. Yet to another guy, they're just ordinary.

yeah. It gets worse. Not ordinary - boring beyond belief!

Doesn'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.

Cool 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.

This was my first thought.

Strong 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-mak...

HN discussion of the Atlantic's Grant Study synopsis:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=605207

The 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.

The 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.

They contribute to the confusion by showing a photo of a young woman in a field.

I wonder why limit the study to men. Weren't women allowed in Harvard in 1938?

No, actually, they went to Radcliffe. Harvard did not admit women to undergraduate programs until 1973.

Paul 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-Charact...

What can the child do once he starts to ask himself what the hell is wrong with him, and little by little, starts to associate some wrongs with his childhood? Is it possible to revert bad parenting?

I read about a different study some time ago (apologies, I've completely forgotten the title, authors or even field) which basically said that twins separated at birth ended up with relatively similar abilities and personalities regardless of whether they were raised in different households with different income levels, parenting styles, diets, etc.

In other words, much of it comes down to genetics. I have no idea the relevance of this idea or even of its validity, but it makes me wonder if the causation they speak of here between parents of a certain personality and their children has any ties to the inherited genetic characteristics rather than the nurturing of the child.

And yes, some of your personality traits may have been affected, but you will be a different person every 5 years anyway; walk in that direction and you will get closer to where you want to be.

As far as I know, the answer is "No, but".

No, you're never going to able to have no effects from your formative years with your parents. BUT, it's rarely impossible to deal with this productively. I suspect such a child will always be asking zirself what's wrong with zir, but hopefully ze can also develop an answer to that question, usually in the form of a reliable support network.

After having read your comment, I googled "zirself"... Is is a commonly used pronoun, or more of a quirk/very new feature of the language that gets used rarely? Interesting concept though!

No, it's not common. Language drift happens through usage, though. I happen to like gender-neutral pronouns, because I like messing with linguistics and conlangs, so I use them in hopes that other people will use them, just like any other neologism.

It's an idea that comes from linguistic relativity, i.e. the philosophy that the language we use to talk about a subject defines the way we think about it. Thus, by using "he" as the gender-neutral pronoun, we're prejudiced towards a male-centred society.

No, "zirself" is not commonly used, but obviously proponents want to change that.

At the end of the day, it's just another branch of political correctness.

Is there anything wrong with them, they and themselves?

Using those doesn't give you a chance to talk about your political views.

It's ambiguous.

"You are in a dark forest. A disembodied voice speaks to you. They want you to follow."

How many voices? Would it have been more correct to say "They wants you to follow"? Should you contort the sentence to drop agency, saying "You should follow"? Is the pronoun referring to some group of people not included in this paragraph?

s/They want/Ze wants/ solves all of these questions immediately and simply.

In most cases, it comes down to stylistic preference. Some people like to use "it". Some people like to alternate "he" and "she". My preference is ze/zir/zirself. Some people feel threatened by it, as if someone else coding in a new language means their old standby of C90 is not good enough.

> s/They want/Ze wants/ solves all of these questions immediately and simply.

Hardly 'simply', as it prompted the GGGP to go and Google the term. You're changing some very significant terms in the language, and it's only simple if everybody is on board with the change.

And he understood it immediately after Googling the definition, just like any other neologism.

The alternative is not having any solution at all.

> And he understood

You mean "ze"?

I'm pretty sure you're male.

"It". A disembodied voice in a dark forest, regardless of whether you can deduce gender, is most definitely an "it". An "it" I would run away from.

It's bad grammar. 'He/she' is singular, 'they' is plural. On the other hand, I consider it a significantly lesser transgression than just introducing new words (with poor aesthetics, IMO).

No, it's not. It was made-up in the 1740s, and has never really been followed as a rule that closely.[1]

Or from Geoff Pullum[2]:

>"Avoid singular they if you want to; nobody is making you use it. But don't ever think that it is new (it goes back to early English centuries ago), or that it is illogical (there is no logical conflict between being syntactically singular and semantically plural), or that it is ungrammatical (it is used by the finest writers who ever used English, writers who uncontroversially knew what they were doing)."

1: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112896/tyranny-pronouns-f...

2: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=89

Albert Ellis has already proven the answer to this is "yes". In short, we are the ones typically responsible for our own neurosis as we maintain flawed thinking or understandings of reality. People with loving parents have turned out screwed up kids, just the same.

"People with loving parents have turned out screwed up kids, just the same."

This simply does not matter if there is a statistically valid conclusion saying the opposite.

There will always be outliers and anecdotes. You should be looking at the statistical trend, not individual cases.

I'd say it's valid if science says otherwise

Now you're just being silly.

I’m sorry, but your comment is quite confusing. Would you mind clarifying your points?

My point is, if you had bad parents, or no parents, you can change your behavior and thinking patterns and end up better off than kids who had good parents.

The research on mothering style may be highly predictive, but unless I'm missing something, it isn't actionable or "useful."

It's useful to parents.

Because bad parents will become more nurturing after reading an article?

A lot of people who had bad parents want to be better parents than what they experienced. Articles can definitely affect their behavior.

How do I know this? Because I'm one of them!

You're right - I had my blinders on.

And ... good for you!

Either that or you're a narcissist and insist on everything being about you. "What's with the baby clothes section on Amazon? Babies can't buy clothes."

I can't remember where I read it, but I like the quote: family goal is not creating good children, but good parents.

Sorry, 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.

I'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_b...

Overly enriched environments might or might not matter. But deprived environments in early childhood demonstrably hurts. A lot.

The cause is that in the first few years of life we lose unused connections between neurons. If a child does not have a primary care giver, then a lot of the connections lost are necessary for proper social and cognitive development, and the child is impaired for life in ways which are clear in the physical structure of the brain.

This has been known for decades, yet still periodically someone somewhere that still has orphanages rediscovers this basic fact. (The most recent example that I heard about involved children in Romania.)

I just watched the TED talk you linked to. Professor Pinker seems to completely dismiss the idea that parenting has a significant effect on the child. I wonder whether this study with rats has changed his mind - here's the relevant quote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5722596

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/the-power-of...

Sorry, I don't have time to watch an entire video. Is there a transcript?

I think parents believe certain things based on what they're taught and their gut instincts; many parents have an opposite view than this one, thinking that "tough love" and high pressure childhoods make the children grow up to be better adults.

This research basically disproves that, saying that nurturing and loving upbringings have that effect, while cold tough upbrinings are detrimental.

Having that kind of evidence is extremely helpful—either parents who read it might change their mind, or it could be discussed in parenting groups.

Either way, the point is that it's scientific evidence. People may eventually come around to it, leading to a better world with more nurturing parents and better childhoods and therefore better adult lives for a great many people.

Will it happen soon? No. These beliefs are often so dogmatic and almost religious in nature that it's unlikely to affect the people who hold them. But maybe it will reach their children.

I disagree with your definition of tough love. Most people view tough love as not willing to spoil your child. Allowing them to know what consequences are for unacceptable behavior. But that doesn't automatically add "negation of all parental care" into the term.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but what I tried to indicate was a philosophy of punishment and negative reinforcement. They can coexist with love, but they're detrimental to it.

My mom studies animal behavior in dogs (read: she's a really good dog trainer) and the science behind positive reinforcement methods is overwhelming. Yet, people still use negative methods and get burned for it... more agressive behavior, less predictable behavior, conditioning that doesn't stick, and long-term trust issues with their dog. Positive methods are self-reinforcing, while negative methods require constant reinforcement to remain effective; at the same time, positive methods build your relationship with the dog and create a happier, healthier animal, while negative reinforcement causes extreme unintentional side-effects in both the long and short-term.

It's the same with kids; we're just animals in the end and the behavioral science applies nearly exactly the same. It's a no-brainer and proven by science, but for some reason people still think you need to whip a kid with a belt to teach them to behave.

Merely "not spoiling your child" is just a minor parenting choice; and surely you can't always be positive when there have to be negative consequences. But I'm talking about far worse negativity and lack of nurturing that's far worse and really is a core belief of a good portion of society.

No, because well intentioned parents can make better choices for their children.

Think of questions like: - Should a parent take a promotion that will result in longer work hours? - Is it worth taking a compensation hit for a parent to stay home or reduce working hours? - Should a parent place a child in a daycare or hire a sitter/nanny? - To what level should grandparents be involved in the raising of a child?

All of these questions have multiple answers that have different impacts on your ability to support yourself and nurture your child. It's a balance.

Or parents who want to be good parents will have one more data point.

More like so-so parents might try to become better parents. It's a continuum. There's a whole cottage industry around how to be a better parent. Presumably a lot of parents are buying those products.

What would interest me is what effect this has on parents. I would suspect that caring for a child has an equally good effect on the parents as it has on the child.

I don't think that the parents could tell you, and I am not sure how researchers could. To raise a child even from birth to first grade takes about six years, a period that will change anyone, parent or not. One does learn many things in caring for a child, though I can't say that is the only way to learn them.

Because you cannot immediately think of a study does not mean one is not possible.

Consider: Measure changes in parents during child-rearing and correlate with measures of amount and style of "care" given to children. Are those that are more caring parents happier, on average, than those who are not? Control for anything you can think of controlling.

did they isolate correlation from causation yet though..?

Funny you should mention that. Here's an extra bit from the book:

"Meaney wondered if a dam’s licking-and-groorning frequency was just a proxy for some genetic trait that was passed on from mother to child. Maybe nervous dams produced temperamentally nervous pups, and those dams also coincidentally happened to be less inclined to lick and groom. To test that hypothesis, Meaney and his researchers did a number of cross-fostering experiments, in which they removed pups at birth from a high-LG dam and put them in the litter of a low-LG dam, and vice versa, in all kinds of combinations.

Whatever permutation they chose, though, however they performed the experiment, they found the same thing: what mattered was not the licking-andgrooming habits of the biological mother; it was the licking-and-grooming habits of the rearing mother. When a pup received the comforting experience of licking and grooming as an infant, it grew up to be braver and bolder and better adjusted than a pup who hadn't, whether or not its biological mother was the one who had done the licking and grooming."

I think that pretty much sums up most social sciences research in general. It turns up lots of data with lots of correlations, but, since the issue of causation probably fundamentally can't be resolved through observational studies (or, very often, any conceivable kind of study), the analysis is sometimes interesting, but rarely, if ever, actionable or useful.

It's totally actionable- moms should lick their kids more often.

Link is an annoying wrapper around http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/thanks-m...

How 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.

Being a researcher myself, I can only guess the answer must be "long-term funding"? :)

"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.

Science. 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.

This is a longitudinal study. They were surveyed every two years.

My comment still applies. People with happy lives will see their earlier years in a warmer light than those without happy lives.

I 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.

They 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.

I think you'll always get that in the pop psych pieces; they'll always always try to reach some eye-catching conclusion title to pull people in. I haven't read the original paper, but I highly doubt they made a case for causation unless the statistics backed it up; and if the stats did back it up, then the science does in fact say causation and not just correlation. It would be interesting to check.

If 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-Csik...

I 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.

Actually, 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.

These 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...

Certainly, social-psycology isn't as certain as hard sciences. One problem, is that in some ways, they are much more complex than the hard sciences. So, to reach the kind of conclusion and laws that you get in hard sciences, they need much more data. Certainly, we can't draw any firm conclusions from this one study, but doing a bunch of similar studies, over several centuries (note that this study took 75 years), might lead to the start of social science becoming a hard science.

Not actively disagreeing, but would you care to elaborate on why you think social-psychology is a psuedo-science?

In his book (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.

You 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.)

Consumer marketing would be a good example of something that has no long-term benefit because society changes too often. Marketing techniques that work in one decade won't work in the next. Because of this, marketing isn't cumulative. Our knowledge of the hard sciences is always improving, building on the work of the previous generations.

Yes, there are legitimate fields that don't have rigorous math behind them, but the social sciences try to use studies and numbers as the foundation of their theories. They want to be treated like biology, but their studies are not up to par.

Astronomy is a hard science and it has the same issue. You can't randomly select celestial bodies and experiment on them. However, we seem to have made huge strides in our understanding of the cosmos.

All hard sciences have sufficient evidence to back them up. Whether it is mathematical proofs, experimental evidence, etc. There is no hard evidence for the social sciences. Astronomers can predict orbits with incredible accuracy millions of years into the future. Social sciences haven't been able to create a single useful model.

Also, you said, "However, we seem to have made huge strides in our understanding of the cosmos." That is very different from the social sciences. I don't think we know anything more about human nature today than Shakespeare did in the 1500s.

They posed this question to the now over-aged Professor who started this study as a Bachelor's project.

He replied: "Tenure."

Related: according to this study in the UK alcohol is the most destructive drug: http://www.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/~mmiller/espanol/Variedades,%2... [PDF]

So... High earners scored higher on "warmest relationships". Which is cause, vs effect here?

Here's to another round of correlation/causation errors. Brace yourself.

Linking to Business Insider for science? Seriously? Business insider is just barely on this side of tabloid.

I 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.

Science 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?

I 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")?

and 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

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).

Which has now been completely invalidated by the internet changing how we all live our lives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com