A couple standing together in front of the boulder field

Pillar 06 of 07

Connection

Measured in people you actually see, not in how you feel.

Connection is the structure of your social life, counted rather than felt: how many people you are in regular contact with, how often you are physically in a room with them, and how many would answer if you called at two in the morning. It is not rapport, charisma, or the state of your marriage. We score it separately from every other pillar because its effect on how long you live is comparable to smoking, and because it is invisible to every test your physician currently runs on you.

(001) On property

Where this actually happens

01
Welcome dinner, Tuesday 6:00pm. The first thing that happens after you arrive is that you eat with the people you will spend the week beside, before any assessment, class, or introduction to the property.
02
Three farm meals — Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday — at one long table, everyone at it. The fixed, communal points in a week you otherwise navigate by choice.
03
The farm brunch on the last morning — the meal moves out of the dining room to the farm itself, so breakfast arrives with the work behind it attached.
04
Farm dinner, Saturday 4:30pm — the culmination of the week’s three one-table meals, which stops the room sorting itself into the groups it arrived in.
05
Departure, Sunday 10:00am, under the standing instruction: go share fruit and plant seeds. You leave with an assignment pointed at the people you are going home to, because those are the people day ninety is measuring.

(002) Why it matters

Across 148 prospective studies and 308,849 people, those with stronger social relationships were about 50 percent more likely to be alive at follow-up — an effect larger than obesity or physical inactivity. This is not a problem that starts at retirement: in the largest meta-analysis of isolation and mortality, social deficits predicted death more strongly in samples averaging under 65 than in older ones. If you are in your fifties, run something, travel most weeks, and conduct the majority of your conversations with people who report to you, you are the profile in question, and your annual physical will not catch it. Social integration also tracks the things your physician does measure — C-reactive protein, blood pressure, waist circumference — so this is not only a quality-of-life pillar.

(003) The evidence

Grouped by how settled the evidence actually is, strongest first. Where the honest answer is we think so, and we are measuring it, the page says so.

StrongMeta-analysis, a replicated body of trials, or a large prospective cohort.

Across 148 prospective studies covering 308,849 participants, stronger social relationships were associated with a 50 percent greater likelihood of survival (OR 1.50), an effect exceeding obesity and physical inactivity.
Holt-Lunstad et al., PLoS Medicine, 2010
Meta-analysis of 70 studies and over 3.4 million people: social isolation raised mortality odds 29 percent, loneliness 26 percent, living alone 32 percent — and the effect was larger in samples averaging under 65 years old.
Holt-Lunstad et al., Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2015

EmergingReal evidence, still thin — a single trial or a small literature.

Across four nationally representative longitudinal US samples, social isolation raised inflammation risk by the same magnitude as physical inactivity in adolescence, and its effect on hypertension in old age exceeded that of clinical risk factors such as diabetes.
Yang et al., PNAS, 2016

Our own hypothesisA mechanism we design around and are measuring ourselves. Not settled science.

In 6,500 English adults over 52 followed a mean of 7.25 years, social isolation still predicted mortality after adjusting for demographics and baseline health (HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.08-1.48); self-reported loneliness did not (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78-1.09).
Steptoe et al., PNAS, 2013
In a UK national survey, people who ate socially more often reported more friends they could depend on and greater community engagement; the data are cross-sectional, so we treat the shared table as a mechanism we are testing rather than one that is settled.
Dunbar, Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 2017

What people get wrong

Most people read Connection as the warm part of the week — the table you liked, the people you met — which is the part least likely to survive to day ninety, because the cohort disperses on Sunday morning. The more useful finding is that felt loneliness and actual isolation are distinct variables that only partly overlap: you can have a crowded calendar, feel fine, be structurally isolated, and carry the risk anyway. So we measure both and build the week around the countable one, because how often you eat with another person is something you can change on a Tuesday in your own city, and how connected you feel is not.

(004) How we score it

Connection is scored on two separate things. The first is a structural count — how many people you are in regular contact with, how often you share a meal with someone, how many you could call in a crisis — which is a number, and a number that can be checked. The second is your own sense of being known, which comes from the flourishing assessment and is self-report, exactly as subjective as that sounds. Both are taken at intake on Tuesday, at departure on Sunday, and again at day ninety using the same instruments, so the comparison is like-for-like. Nothing on your wrist measures this pillar and we will not pretend otherwise: your Whoop, Oura or Apple Watch contributes nothing here, and the day-ninety structural count is the number we actually watch, because it is the only one you can move from home.

Intake, departure, and again at day ninety. The last one is the only one that tests anything — anyone can feel better on the drive home.

(005) The other six

[Request an invitation][Back to the Method]