why smart people are better off with fewer friends - smart

Hell could be someone else.
You're really smart at leastif.
This is the meaning of a fascinating new study published last month in the British Journal of Psychology.
Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the School of Economics, London, Singapore University of Management, has tapped into what makes life better --lived.
While traditionally the domain of priests, philosophers and novelist, investigators, economists, biologists and scientists have been answering this question in recent years.
Kim Ze and Lee's theory is Hunter.
The collection and lifestyle of our ancient ancestors is the foundation of our happiness now.
"In an ancestral environment, situations and circumstances that will increase the satisfaction of our ancestral lives may still increase the satisfaction of our lives today," they wrote . ".
They used what they called the "theory of happiness in the savanna" to explain two major findings from an analysis of a large national survey (
15,000 respondents)
Adults aged 18 to 28
First of all, they find that people living in more densely populated areas are generally not happy with their lives.
"The higher the population density in the surrounding environment, the less happy they are," said the respondents . ".
Second, they find that the more social interaction they have with close friends, the greater their self.
Happiness Report.
But there's a big exception.
These correlations are even the opposite for smarter people.
"Therefore, the impact of population density on life satisfaction is more than twice that of low population density
People with high IQ
They found that people with high IQ.
"If you socialize more frequently with friends, smarter people are actually not very happy with life.
"Let me repeat the last sentence: when smart people spend more time with friends, they will not be so happy.
Now, the general outline of the two findings is largely uncontested.
For example, a large number of previous studies have outlined what some call "Cities-
Rural happiness gradient
Jin Ze and Li explained: "The residents of rural and small towns are happier than the residents of the suburbs, and the residents of the suburbs are happier than the residents of the small central cities, and in turn, they are happier than those in the big cities.
"Why is high population density causing a person to be less happy?
There is a series of sociological studies on this issue.
But for the most direct proof of this effect, just 45-
Ride for a minute in a crowded crowd
Red Line train for an hour and then tell me how you feel.
The second discovery by Jin Ze and Li is more interesting.
The connection between friends and family is often seen as a basic component of happiness and happiness, which is not surprisingbeing.
But why is this relationship going to be upended for really smart people?
I asked this question to Carol Graham, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies the economics of happiness.
"The findings here indicate (
This is not surprising)
Those who have more intelligence and ability to use. . .
"It is unlikely that they will spend so much time socializing because they focus on some other long-term goals," she said . ".
Think about the really smart people you know.
They may include a doctor who tries to cure cancer, or a writer who works on great American novels, or a human rights lawyer who works to protect the most vulnerable groups in society.
If frequent social activities reduce their pursuit of these goals, then this may have a negative impact on their overall satisfaction with life.
But Kim and Lee's Savannah theory of happiness gives a different explanation.
The art of thought with the preconceived spirit in the human brain evolved to meet the needs of our ancestors for the African savanna environment, where population density and you are in rural Alaska today (
Less than one person per square kilometer).
Take the brain that evolved for that environment and put it into Manhattan today (
Population density: 27,685 people per square kilometer)
You can see how you evolved.
"Our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers in a small band of about 150 people," Kim Ze and Lee explained . ".
"In this case, frequent contact with lifelong friends and allies may be necessary for the survival and reproduction of both sexes.
"We are still social beings today, which reflects the early reflection of close dependence --
Social groups.
Since then, the typical human life has changed rapidly.
Back to the Savannah, we don't have cars, iPhones, processed food, and we don't have "celebrity apprentices "--
It is likely that our biological evolution is not fast enough to keep up.
So there may be a "mismatch" between what our brains and bodies design and what most of us live in now ".
All in all: you heard of Gu-diet.
But are you ready? happiness?
But at least in the eyes of Kim and Lee, this is a turning point.
Smart people may be more capable of dealing with new problems (
At least from an evolutionary perspective)
Current challenges
Life is coming to us.
"Smarter people, with a higher level of general intelligence, therefore have a greater ability to solve new problems in evolution, there may be fewer of them writing in understanding and dealing with new entities and situations that evolve.
If you are smarter and more capable of adapting to things, it may be easier for you to align your evolutionary tendencies with the modern world.
So living in a high
Population size may have less impact on your overall healthbeing —
This was discovered by Jin Ze and Li in the investigation and analysis.
Also, smart people may be better
Ready to abandon the entire Hunter-
Social networks-
Especially when they pursue higher ambitions.
It is important to keep in mind that this is the argument put forward by Jin Ze and Li, which is not a problem solved scientifically. "Paleo-" theories —
Our bodies can best adapt to the environment of our earliest ancestors.
In recent years, especially with food companies and some researchers
Promote the so-called ancientdiet fad.
Kim Ze and Lee's main findings on population density, social interaction and happiness are relatively uncontroversial.
But Carol Graham of the Brookings Institution says one potential flaw in their research is that it defines happiness from a self-perspective
Satisfaction with Life (
"How satisfied are you with the whole life? ")
Not considered experienced-being (
"How many times did you laugh yesterday?
How many times have you been angry? " etc. ).
Investigators know that these two types of problems can lead to different assessments of Wellsbeing.
Jin Ze and Li insist that this distinction is not important to their theory of the savanna.
Although we have conducted a comprehensive analysis. . .
With a measure of global life satisfaction, the Savannah happiness theory is not committed to any specific definition and is consistent with any reasonable concept of happiness, subjective well-being --
"Existence and life satisfaction," they wrote . ".
Jin Ze himself is no stranger to the dispute.
In 2011, he wrote a blog post for Psychology Today entitled "Why are black women less physically attractive than other women?
"This post triggered a storm of criticism and was quickly dismantled.
His current study of the well
Being is unlikely to cause so much criticism like that blog post.
But the evolutionary view of happiness and wisdom may lead to some heated discussion in this area.
Jin Ze said in an email that he understood the way happiness was fundamentally different from the argument about the benefits of happiness such as Ancient timesdiet.
"When we don't have other aspects of our ancestral lives, blindly introducing our ancestral diets seems like a dangerous and ridiculous prescription for me," he said . ".
"I only explain nature;
"I don't tell people what to do or what not to do," he added . ".
More information from Wonkblog: The happiest-
The least unhappy