Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 175 posts

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

#91

Post by polymatter »

JDDunn9 wrote: post #31
jckt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

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.

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

#92

Post by precisioncoder »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #85
precisioncoder wrote: post #81

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.

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

#93

Post by mseebach »

tomp wrote: post #88
saraid216 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

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.

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

#94

Post by kailuowang »

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.

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

#95

Post by cafard »

ma2rten wrote: post #77
nostromo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's useful to parents.

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.

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

#96

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

fragsworth wrote: post #71
tokenadult wrote: post #45

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 (no…

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?

> 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.

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

#97

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

kailuowang wrote: post #94

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?

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

#98

Post by JDDunn9 »

polymatter wrote: post #91
JDDunn9 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

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.

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

#99

Post by gaius »

singular wrote: post #15

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)…

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

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

#100

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

singular wrote: post #15

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)…

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.

Post reply on HN