It's precisely that many of the participants did not have happy (or healthy) lives that makes the study interesting.

You're right that the initial sample is much narrower than ideal. That's why they've broadened the study to include a comparator group of city men and second-generation participants of both genders.

Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14818590 and please don't post like this to HN.

I'm familiar with the rules and think you've over-focused on the form, and ignored the legitimate content, of my comment.

I like this study! I didn't call it 'bullshit' and there's nothing nasty in my formulation.

But the high-order bit of things to be considered in the limits of this study's interpretation is how peculiar the main focus group - Harvard enrollees in 1938 - was.

This HU house-press piece only obliquely hints at the issue, by noting how the study has gradually expanded to include children and wives, and an "inner-city" "control group".

I realize wrapping the point in a formulaic meme risks making it look like pure snark/dismissal. But it can also be a way to sharply and memorably raise a very specific issue.