“At a time when many people around the world are living into their tenth decade, the longest longitudinal study of human development ever undertaken offers some welcome news for the new old age: our lives continue to evolve in our later years, and often become more fulfilling than before. Begun in 1938, the Grant Study of Adult Development charted the physical and emotional health of over 200 men, starting with their undergraduate days. The now-classic ‘Adaptation to Life’ reported on the men’s lives up to age 55 and helped us understand adult maturation. Now George Vaillant follows the men into their nineties, documenting for the first time what it is like to flourish far beyond conventional retirement. Reporting on all aspects of male life, including relationships, politics and religion, coping strategies, and alcohol use (its abuse being by far the greatest disruptor of health and happiness for the study’s subjects), ‘Triumphs of Experience’ shares a number of surprising findings. For example, the people who do well in old age did not necessarily do so well in midlife, and vice versa. While the study confirms that recovery from a lousy childhood is possible, memories of a happy childhood are a lifelong source of strength. Marriages bring much more contentment after age 70, and physical aging after 80 is determined less by heredity than by habits formed prior to age 50. The credit for growing old with grace and vitality, it seems, goes more to ourselves than to our stellar genetic makeup.”
I don’t see why this would be more biased than people who went to college in the 1990s (other than the fact that the latter make up a larger proportion of the current population).
Edit: I misunderstood your comment. I thought you made a point about the 1930s in general, rather than going to college in the 1930s. I now agree.
(other than the fact that the latter make up a larger proportion of the current population).
That does change things… Post-1930 saw an incredible expansion of college going, democratizing to a large fraction of the population. The enrolled population is going to change since it was very far from a random sample in the first place.
Longitudinal study of men and happiness
Sample bias warning: people who went to college in the 1930s constitute a highly atypical subset of humanity.
I don’t see why this would be more biased than people who went to college in the 1990s (other than the fact that the latter make up a larger proportion of the current population).
Edit: I misunderstood your comment. I thought you made a point about the 1930s in general, rather than going to college in the 1930s. I now agree.
That does change things… Post-1930 saw an incredible expansion of college going, democratizing to a large fraction of the population. The enrolled population is going to change since it was very far from a random sample in the first place.