The Good Life. Robert Waldinger and Marc Schulz
In the 1930’s, Harvard University sponsored a study of people who had graced their college…… and followed them for their lifetimes. The Harvard study came to include an additional group of men who grew up in working class neighborhoods of Boston. Periodic check ins to review their emotional, physical, spiritual, and economic health was undertaken for decades—-and continues with their descendants to this day. John F Kennedy was a participant in this study.
The authors publish the book with the intent of drawing upon what this study can conclude about lifestyle and its effect on the quality and quantity of life. Their conclusions are something out of pre-Socratic Greek philosophy: what is important for a fulfilling life which includes the nebulous concept, “happy” is ones relationships with other people. Their study suggests it is at least as important as whether you are obese, or smoke, or don’t exercise, our usual focus on living a long life.
An old fish, swimming upstream sees two young fish swimming downstream. He says, “Hey guys, how’s the water?” They swim past each other. One young fish says to the other, “What the hell is water?” The environment we all live in and which is essential to our survival if not growth, is often invisible to us.
The difficulty of measuring “happy” speaks to what and how to measure it. It is relatively easy to learn, “What do you do for a living/what is your salary?” It is harder to learn, “Are you happy and satisfied with life?” A corollary is one of expectations: we have our inner lives and beliefs compared constantly with the external presentations of everyone else we encounter. It can be quite a contrast.
An interesting feature of the study is the ability to compare white men of comparable ages who came from different economic classes. Happiness and failure can be found in both groups. The authors work to tie the common elements linked to the outcomes.
I reached a conclusion long ago that they bring forward. In my words, I have known many really smart people to make poor judgements and decisions. Their point is that people are terrible at knowing what is good for them. Cliched findings come next ie how many of us think of our life’s achievements are like awards posted on a wall or the library full of interesting books? Again, they contrast the difficulty trying to judge “happiness” which they translate into “thriving, wellness, or well being.”
The “science” of this work provides examples of trying to close the loop on this question. For example, they identify that in modern surveys, one in four Americans will label themselves as “lonely.” They surveyed people at age 50 and asked for them to judge their relationships. Those with favorable scores were contrasted with unfavorable scores and their disease states were measured over decades. Those with “good” relationships as each person defined it in the survey in general, were healthier twenty years later.
Some experiments are introduced:
Commuters in the Northeast were asked to judge their experiences commuting. Two groups were then formed and one continued as before. The other was tasked with starting a conversation with a stranger on the commute. Measurements of satisfaction with the commute mostly improved in the group with such conversations.
People undergoing painful procedures report on a scale of 1-10 the pain they experienced. Two groups were formed—one experienced the procedure as usual and the other group had a stranger present, holding their hand during the procedure. Pain scores were uniformly down in the hand holding group.
An experiment found two groups tested by having a skin biopsy done on their arms to measure time of healing. One group was of people who were the family members caring for a someone with dementia; the other group was similar in age and sex but with no such responsibility. The skin healed 9 days faster (40 vs 49) in the group that did not have responsibilities for dementia care.
Relationships then, both superficial and more developed have positive and negative influences on our lives. The pre-socratics had that down as well. These experiments point out that the dichotomy of mind vs body is an illusion.
A criticism of this study is its historical roots being the study of white men in America. Similar studies can be found throughout the world and to support the conclusions. A comparison is made between rural blacks from Mississippi and Caucasians from Northern Finland. A common theme? One of the few commonalities was that regardless of age, those with good emotional relationships had significantly less risk of dying.
There is a viewpoint in evolutionary biology that humans are successful for a number of reasons: we have language, tools, consciousness that allows for planning into the future, and we have social organization. No animal can compete with our level of organization when seeking resources. In the modern world, rapidly evolving changes in societal norms find many people stressed and the authors propose some perspectives and models for coping when social organization is failing or inadequate.
Loneliness is addressed: For old people, self defined loneliness is more dangerous than obesity. Chronic loneliness increases a person’s risk of death by 25% in any given year of life. The spate of killings in our country may suggest that it isn’t just the lonely person’s life at risk. The United Kingdom has taken on this as a societal problem; they have a ministry of Loneliness! The economic impact of loneliness in the age group 16-24 where 40% label themselves as lonely is calculated to cost employers and the government 3.4 billion dollars a year.
Loneliness is a subjective state; you can live in a dorm with hundreds of fun loving peers and be lonely. You can be old and crotchety with just a few friends and not feel lonely. An exercise is suggested:
Think of someone you really enjoy and do the math: thirty minutes a week? An hour? Multiply this out for the time you have known that and compare it to the time spent, working, sleeping, pooping, watching TV or looking at your smart phone. Can you do better than you are with your connections to people that energize you and fulfill your time when you are with them? If not, can you generate some?
Consider making a grid of the effect people have on you on the X axis and time spent with them on the Y axis. Where do your friends and relatives land? Where should they be?
There is risk in making a conscious adjustment with this “Xray” of your relationships and it involves reaching out with a change in mind. It may involve you “giving” something, time, the outreach, a function, but the authors point out that the giving is as rewarding as the receiving.
The Public Health aspect of this discussion asks us to consider the younger generation of adults whose economic circumstances are quite different than their grandparents. The percentage of people never married ages 25-50 among my peers was 9%. The number now? 35% .
The Harvard study found conclusions you might expect from this question: If you had an account from which you paid for everything and you had to pay for everything—-sitting, reading, driving, sleeping, and you did not know how much money was in the account, would you do things ie spend your time differently? Harvard study typically finds 80 years old saying they wish they had spent more time with people and worried less on transient things. Consider the words we use when speaking to this point: We spend time. We pay attention. If the currency of our lives is time, money is a poor metaphor. They suggest giving attention sustains life in its fullest sense.
Another Experiment:
People with Cell phones were called periodically to ask what they were doing at the moment of the call, and what they had been thinking about. 50% of the time, they were thinking of something off subject from their task (I can certainly relate……). If we think of our brains as evolved to allow focus, like an owl at night listening and watching for that mouse, why is it we are flitting about like a hummingbird from flower to flower?
The authors point to well known related issues: smart phones and social media. They ask, “How do you feel after an hour on Facebook? Exhilarated? Tired? Happy?” The answer can guide your time management and alternative options, if needed.
A model for interpersonal communication—with attention:
WISER
W: Watch——if criticized or confronted, don’t react but observed—the context may affect what was said ie the offender may be stressed or misunderstand the topic being discussed. How are you feeling and why exactly? Take your emotional, “pulse”.
I-interpret—we all “interpret”—am I really insulted or taking it personally—is it about me? Why am I getting emotional—what is at stake? What might I be overlooking here?
S-Select: what is your response? What are my choices?
E-engage: Intention should be positive with a goal to clarify/improve.
R-Reflect: Don’t just leave it but consider how it went and follow up.
If you are stuck anyway consider that you may not be a victim, but a volunteer. Consider what advice you would give to a stranger who told the story of the conversation you are reacting to. We often think differently and would act differently if the situation is not about us.
“A beginner’s point of view offers many options and the expert has very few……”
The book concludes with a reflection on recent history and its effect on relationships ie Covid in schools, the workplace, and more. They suggest the emotional problems faced by generation Z rival those who came of age during the great depression. The tools we have to offer people coming of age are quite different now. There is an evolving science of “happiness” that deserves to be introduced; they model the four R’s in school: Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, and Relationships.
Lastly, many many unrelated studies support the conclusions brought forth in the book, anchored in the Harvard Study. Socially connected people across all ages and cultures fare better than those who are not connected both in their easily measured average length of life and their self reported quality of life.
Ball is in your court!
“THERE ARE TWO PILLARS OF HAPPINESS REVEALED BY THE HARVARD STUDY….ONE IS LOVE. THE OTHER IS FINDING A WAY OF COPING WITH LIFE THAT DOES NOT PUSH LOVE AWAY.” GEORGE VAILLANT
Comments