
Are we happier when we spend more time with others? - brahmwg
https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-friends
======
axaxs
Anecdotally... I am, but I seem doomed.

I'm not really antisocial. In fact, I can become overtalkative at times when
in a social setting. But, given the option, I never seem to want to 'get out'
and socialize. Though, when I force myself to, I am in such a better mood for
a few days. Then, back to normal, and avoiding social gatherings again until
the next time.

~~~
lloeki
Sounds like you have an introvert trait (in the Myers Briggs sense), which
does _not_ mean despising human interaction but that even though you enjoy it,
it’s taxing at some level (but you get some benefit at another level). If this
is the case, the rejection comes from energy being exhausted (no one enjoys
being exhausted) and you have to recharge your social interactions batteries.

At some point you may have intuitively associated meeting with people with
that exhaustion and balanced your NN towards “not meeting” by default, hence
the doominess feeling.

Active, _conscious_ steps I took to get me out of that:

1\. Recognise that being social brings you something internal (mood
improvements)

2\. Recognise that being social costs you some energy (depletes a battery)

3\. Stop self-bashing for “not being social” at times (battery needs topping
up)

4\. Create a positive feedback loop instead of a negative one, by having less
long/intense social interactions but more frequent, so that the battery never
truly runs out and has time to recharge quickly

This takes time as the NN has to be retrained to break the default fight or
flight reaction of staying in the safe zone at home.

It’s a bit like enjoying running a marathon and have a happy and relaxed mind
following that, but the body is exhausted and certainly doesn’t want to run
again back to back as it needs time to recover.

The introvert trait will not go away but the battery can be trained and
improved in capacity, and end up looking forward to meeting people as long as
it’s properly managed.

~~~
humanrebar
Protip: Volunteer somewhere. Or just find people who enjoy your company.

If you're treating this like a diet or exercise regimen, it will probably turn
out the way most of those turn out.

Instead, maybe think about the _other people involved_ and consider them
important as well. There are plenty of people that need some attention, care,
resources, advice, and so on. If people come to rely on you, it is motivating,
meaningful, and is more in line with the Golden Rule. I'm sure most of us
would rather be friends with someone than be their weekly dose of socializing.

If you really don't like people, help out animals. Or the environment. Or "the
commu ity". As long as it's part of a team.

~~~
kd5bjo
On the opposite end of the scale: go to a sporting event and cheer on the home
team. You’ll be in an energetic group with common purpose, and no expectation
to hold a conversation of any kind.

~~~
humanrebar
My point was that "how am I minmaxing my life?" is a poor foundation for a
healthy relationship on an ethical level if not a practical one. Go ahead and
start with being focused on others and trust that the personal benefits will
follow.

Cheering on an underappreciated club might have the same benefits, but I'm
mostly doubtful that consumer activities, albeit fun and mildly social ones,
qualify as being externally focused.

------
jerryuen
I found this study to be a good reference but I question how useful some of
the data are for 20-30 years old people nowadays because:

1\. The study started in 1938, which is a very different time comparing to
today. Young people has way more options to enjoy life alone such as
traveling, playing video games, watching youtube by themselves just to name a
few.

2\. The participants are mostly 90 years old now and it is understandable that
they prefer relationship comparing to 20 years old folks nowadays.

3\. Also, I don't see any information about the amount of friends. Is it the
same having 1 friend vs 100 friends vs 1000 friends on facebook? Probably not.

4\. Just seeing some random participants in their 70' in year 2000 saying they
are more happy with friends is not really useful for people today. It would be
nice to see the chart moving based on different time (2000 vs 2019) for
different generation group.

5\. "the search for happiness can become a source of unhappiness", is kind of
depressing and confusing. Is going out with a friend consider "search for
happiness"? I "can become" a billionaire buying lottery tickets, does that
mean I should or shouldn't buy the ticket? It is based on the success rate and
this article is missing that data.

I say you should evaluate from time to time if having friends or not (and how
many) make you better or happier. I disagree that spending time with others
ALWAYS make you happier. For example, I dislike traveling with large group of
friends due to noise, planning and logistic issues.

~~~
cjpb
You raise some good points.

I also believe personality types play a large part, for example I'm an
introvert, and while spending time with others makes me happy - that can
easily be negated if I spend too much time with others or don't have a chance
to come up for air (e.g. some alone time).

Not to mention the personality types of others as well. I have introverted
friends whom I can quite happily spend weeks at a time with (low energy, deep
conversations, no awkwardness with silence), and on the other end of the scale
there are friends who are extremely extroverted whom I cannot spend more than
several hours with (high energy, shallow and constant changing of topics being
discussed, a feeling of awkwardness when there is silence).

~~~
jchw
I agree, being introverted definitely seems to impact the amount of time you
want to spend with others, though I am maybe somewhat different in my
preferences. I absolutely enjoy spending time with people, but _even_ spending
time with other introverted folks can be tiring for me, because sometimes I
just want to sit in a quiet room completely alone. (Many of my other, also
very introverted friends, disagree and can spend nearly all of their time with
like-minded people. Which can be a little awkward.)

~~~
chantelles
Yep. Though I am gregarious, I grew up very isolated with very little
interaction even with parents and my biggest problem as an adult is
remembering to make time alone for myself because if I do not I grow less
patient with people around me. But I also know that many people need to always
be with people and I wonder: am I a result of a strange/bad upbringing? So I
have committed to spending time with people but there is nothing I love more
than a week totally alone and my happiest memories are months where I lived
completely alone. One trick for balance: living in countries where I do not
speak the language is an excellent way to be around people but have peace.

~~~
agent008t
Have you tried going over to countries where you cannot even read the
language? E.g. Korea, Japan? I found the experience very refreshing and
surreal in a good way.

~~~
chantelles
Yep. In Russia - now I can read the letters but only with concentration. I
want to spend more time in Asia. It really helps me notice the space reading
takes up in my seeing and also, how important wonder is in fun. I spend so
much time wondering what food I am buying, what is behind that door, what
those people are protesting etc and that energy is like ... embers for
creativity and makes it easier for me to admit that even when I can read it
all, understand it all, I still really don't know anything much.

------
Ididntdothis
I think the real value of spending time with others is having a support
network. I often don't do well in groups and simply don't enjoy it so I do a
lot of things alone. But the major drawback is that I don't have much of a
support network outside of close family. I am definitely worried that if
something happens to me nobody will help me.

~~~
ycombinete
There are proximate causes, and ultimate causes. You have identified an
ultimate cause for social behavior. A proximate cause would be that we do it
because it makes us feel better.

------
cryptozeus
May be not a popular opinion but I think we feel happier when we spend friends
because it helps us forget about ourselves and inner dialogues. I don’t mean
it in a sad or depressing way but our mind chatters all the time and it’s
exhausting for the body’s resources.

Spending time with others gives us break from that.

~~~
chewz
All of man’s problems stem from his inability to sit quietly in a room alone.
-Blaise Pascal

~~~
cryptozeus
Its a good quote but I don’t think society and world can support this. Why is
there a room to begin with and why do you have to be forced to sit down in it.
Completely counter intuitive. Same reason why meditation works for those 20
min.

~~~
chewz
It is just a quote from Pascal's Thoughts so more like haiku or ad hoc
observation then a commandment.

You don't need to sit 24 hours alone in an empty room - you just should be
able to - this is my interpretation.

It is like '\- Master, how long should I meditate? - 20 minutes is enough. -
But I don't have time for that. - If you don't have time then meditate for one
hour.'

------
toomanybeersies
It is just me, or does "at least once a month" not really seem like regular
interaction with friends?

I'd have thought at least once a week would qualify as regular. Once a month
seems really irregular, I couldn't imagine seeing my friends only a dozen
times a year. Is this common?

~~~
xwdv
This is just how it is when you get older. You’ll see friends maybe once a
month for an average of 4 hours or so, basically 0.5% of your year. The rest
of the time you spend sleeping, eating, working, occupying yourself with other
activities that make up life. One day you might just wake up and realize all
your friends are dead and buried, and if you are the last one left then you
_know_ you’re next. It’s over. Where did life go?

~~~
tempsy
This really depends. Would say the biggest factor is kids.

Also, a revelation I’ve had as a millennial gay man is because the rate of
having kids is relatively low among gay men in particular, anecdotally gay
male friends stay in touch at a higher rate than straight counterparts even as
we get older.

Not necessarily always a good thing, though. Especially in SF gay culture
feels even more “Peter Pan” like.

------
hq992
I need to spend time with people. I feel miserable when I don't. I doesn't
matter if it's quality time, I can literally be doing nothing useful but if
I'm sharing that time with someone else then it's all good.

The irony is that I frequently don't because of some circumstances that I live
in, but I'm working hard to change change that.

~~~
slx26
I'm pretty much the opposite. I can get along with people and I never have
problems with others, but I just can't stand being with people. It completely
drains me, and I tend to become depressed for a few days afterwards. It
doesn't matter if the interaction is "pleasant" or not.

~~~
effie
It is interesting how people are different. Perhaps some group evolution
survival strategy? If all people liked being with other people, we would
basicall end up all in single place and discover new places and new people far
away more slowly. And if all people hated company, we could not build anything
big such as towns or countries.

------
ghi5goio3qno4i3
I've always wondered about these kinds of studies.

For example, let's say we took a loner and gave them a 24/7 health monitor
system that also helped apply preventative and corrective treatments, would
someone live just as long as someone with a social support network? Presumably
at some point in the near future we're going reach that level of technical
accessibility for the average consumer, I would wonder perhaps if the results
would change when systems like these become commonplace.

I'd also be curious to see if the same thing regarding happiness could be said
if someone had similar support networks that close friends bring, but without
human interaction. For instance if same loner was to live out on an island
alone but had reliable and easy access to all physical needs, lacked any
serious threats to his well being, had enough to keep him busy, would he be
just as happy as the those that responded in that report?

~~~
rjf72
The BBC ran a phenomenal article here [1] detailing a wide array of data on
the longevity of people through the ages. How long did higher class Ancient
Greeks live? Ancient Greece dates back to starting around 3,300 years ago. In
spite of their remarkable technological achievements they remained almost
entirely ignorant of medicine. They relied on a system based around the 'four
humors' \- blood, phlegm, yellow/black bile. They had no clue about germs or
any other basic fundamentals of modern medicine. Vaccines? You need to wait
about 3,000 years. And their hygenic habits are the sort we'd find pretty
questionable. For instance they obviously did not have rolls of 2 ply at their
toilets. Instead what they had were sponges - butt brushes. One guy'd do his
business. You'd come in, and give the well used sponge a swirl about in some
water. For the fancy toilets, you might give it a swirl in some vinegar. And
then you'd have your go.

So how long did they live? The BBC article mentioned a 'census' of the
longevity of individuals we now are familiar with. The median life expectancy
was 72 years. Pythagorus - 75, Hippocrates - 90, Plato - 80, etc. Of course
there's some some selection bias there, but there is also other evidence of
their longevity as well. For instance in Ancient Rome one could not hold the
office of Consul until reaching the age of 43, first office was not available
until age 30. Another mildly intriguing part anecdote there is that the life
expectancy declined pretty substantially for those born in the latter part of
the civilization (after 100BC) to only 66 years. The likely culprit there is
the installation of significant public piping systems... made out of lead.
They inadvertently poisoned themselves for centuries.

The article also goes on to analyze numerous other sources than tend to paint
a recurring picture: there was high infant and youth mortality, but people who
made it to adulthood tended to have a life expectancy not all that different
than we do today. It seems to suggest that a large part of our increased life
expectancy is not from the trillions of dollars we've spent on trying to find
a [profit making] pill for everything, but instead from very simple things
like access to clean water and food.

[1] - [http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181002-how-long-did-
ancien...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181002-how-long-did-ancient-
people-live-life-span-versus-longevity)

~~~
idoubtit
This BBC article intends to surprise the reader, and I think the reader has to
be extremly cautious with its content. Yet, it briefly mentions that the Roman
longevity concerned only the nobility.

> all working-class people who were buried in common graves. The average age
> of death was 30, and that wasn’t a mere statistical quirk

Back to the BBC article, some of its source are dubious, and I suppose they
were selected only because of their "selling power". For instance, the paper
on Victorian life expectancy was debated here[^0] with much skepticism.

[^0]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14586145](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14586145)

~~~
rjf72
There was no magic longevity potion those of means had. All they had over the
common class are the things we all have and take for granted today -
protection from the consequences war and mostly stable access to clean food
and water. The upper class of times back then arguably less so on both
accounts than even a lower class individual today. This was the whole point.
It's not like you could attribute their longevity to sophisticated medicine,
because it literally did not exist at the time.

------
rvn1045
I’m currently spending time traveling and can sometimes go stretches without
much interaction. I mostly stay at hostels and it’s wierd how that kind of
communal sleeping arrangement makes me feel better even if I’m not actively
interacting with people there. I think this was mentioned in the book Tribe by
Sebastian Junger, about how we’ve evolved to sleep in large groups and that
doesn’t really happen anymore.

~~~
slx26
I guess a big part of the benefits come from being able to feel part of
something. Even if you don't interact directly with others, you can still feel
like you belong, like you are part of something. Just being there might work
in many cases.

If you are unable to achieve that, you can easily feel like shit no matter the
amount of interaction you have with others.

------
ur-whale
I doubt there's an answer to that question that applies to the general
population.

Some people are miserable without social interaction and others dislike it
intensely.

And even if someone manages to build some statistics that proves the general
answer is "yes", I suspect said answer will be of very little practical use to
a given individual.

------
vectorEQ
people looking for blanket solutions to happiness. there is no one size that
fits all for that. find what makes you happy by listening to yourself.

~~~
mapcars
Happiness is exactly the same in every human being - is just a certain type of
chemistry. In which ways people find access to it depends on person,
environment, society and your background - this is what is unique.

But all these things are indirect and involve (unreliable) mediums. There are
ways to access this directly and be happy and ecstatic every single moment
without literally anything.

~~~
rofo1
This is correct and congruent with what science knows as of today. I sometimes
wonder how the world will look like when we would have evolved our science to
(perfectly) control the ratio of chemicals inside us.

Imagine, happiness on a click. Something like quick dopamine release without
side effects.

~~~
effie
I am afraid such happiness would destroy us. Or make us a docile sheep with no
ambitions. At least part of humanity accomplishments is because challenges
induce chemical imbalances, they take you out of your comfort zone.

------
badrabbit
In my experience no human is ok with being socially isolated for a long period
of time. But difficulty with forming healthy social relationships makes the
experience of attempting to "warm up" to others very unpleasant to people who
don't get social exposure to begin with. Especially for anyone that performs
extensive introspection it is very difficult and the experience can be
interpreted as unhappiness.

I think maybe being with others is most pleasant when one has a healthy
relationship with one's self.

~~~
ur-whale
>In my experience no human is ok with being socially isolated for a long
period of time

Citation needed.

There was an article on HN a couple of weeks back about a guy who spent 20+
years alone in the woods and was perfectly happy for it.

~~~
leetcrew
>> In my experience no human is ok with being socially isolated for a long
period of time

> Citation needed.

for their experience?

~~~
Retra
It's a bit incongruous to talk about "all humans" when you haven't experienced
them all. Asking for a citation is asking for a justification for this
generalization, not for a citation about the experience itself.

I mean, if the argument was "no human I've met can stand being alone for long
periods of time", the obvious problem is selection bias: you don't meet people
who like being alone.

~~~
badrabbit
Talk about straw-man. I never said "no human i've met",you interjected that to
make yout argument. I did generalize but you seem to be missing what i was
trying to say.

To rephrase: based on my own experiences I don't believe a human can achieve
inner peace and happiness without at least some social contact once in a
while.

~~~
Retra
I'm not even arguing with you, let alone constructing a straw man to argue
with. I'm simply explaining why an explanation that justifies a belief is
appropriate here. I don't care what you believe, I care why you believe it.

------
kodz4
My plan is to run for President or get into politics atleast. Watching all
these Geezers having the time of their lives in their 70s and 80s has made up
my mind. Just look at Ralf Nader, Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh ranting and
raving away with the energy of 10 year olds. It's that social mojo they are
tapping into man. If I can wake up everyday troll the country, get a pat on
the back from my buddies in my 90s...I think I'll die reasonably happy.

~~~
trevyn
FWIW, I bet that there’s a lot of hormone replacement therapy going on in that
cohort.

~~~
balfirevic
That is... unlikely:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone_replacement_therapy)

I guess you meant this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_replacement_therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_replacement_therapy)

~~~
trevyn
Ah, thanks. I was thinking both growth hormone and androgens, though there may
be other hormones and factors involved as well.

------
jvvw
Hmmm, what about social contact with family members? How long does the
interaction need to be to count? Would coffee qualify or chatting to other
parents for five minutes each day on the school run? Once a month does feel
like a very low threshold to me - but I can see how a lot of people's social
contact could be dominated by family. It'd be interesting to distinguish
between that and no social contact at all.

------
rahulkapil
Groups make us relatively happier because we innately want freedom from self.

Drugs, music, meditation, adventure sports also provide that.

~~~
Tade0
I can't relate to that and I think that a measurably large portion of the
population can't as well.

I like being with myself. So much so that I deliberately drive instead of
flying so that I can have more "me time".

------
ed-209
Better question: how out of touch must one be with themselves for this to even
be a question?

~~~
lonelappde
The mark of an intellectual is curious mind is to investigate even things that
seem obvious, to understand their nature.

------
Kaiyou
That heavily depends on the people you are spending time with, doesn't it?

------
pts_
Sounds like an echo chamber of thoughts. Also spending time reading a book at
the very least is spending time with another person because it is written BY
another person.

------
mapcars
No.

