Maggie's Farm

I'm reading quite a bit of subjective analysis in that paper, not real fact-finding. Hypothesizing about why people felt or acted a certain way based on verbal accounts, which today would be considered an unreliable means of accumulating data.

Feelings were imposed - people were 'happier' before they got wealthier and life was improved because there were 'more people' in their lives. (Honestly, there were many more people in my life long ago, but I don't remember being happier just because of that.)

It's a strange study. My guess? They were healthy because they worked hard, were happy, and that's pretty much all you need.

I grew up not too far from Roseto.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-rock-positano/the-mystery-of-the-roseta_b_73260.html

I'm confused by the use of the word "healthy" in this article. Less coronary disease is one aspect of being "healthy", but it's not "healthy" on a standalone basis.

Did they live longer than most others? Have lower medical bills due to colds/flu/viruses? Less skin diseases or cancers?

There are trade-offs of all kinds, and unless you point to everything, the concept of overall health (a term I used in my comment above) remains an open question.

Maybe the close-knit nature of their society did help reduce heart disease, I'd willingly give that to the people doing the survey. But what else was going on there?