As others mention, another potentially incorrect causation/correlation confusion. Smiling for you baseball photo is not necessarily indicative of smiling in gen

As others mention, another potentially incorrect causation/correlation confusion. Smiling for you baseball photo is not necessarily indicative of smiling in general. Perhaps. But it's quite possible that the players who smiled for their photo were already well-established, could afford to seem less professional, etc. And if they were more successful by the time of that photo, then perhaps their careers on average were more successful, and hence they had easier, more-stress free and perhaps longer lives. Or to continue the success-at-time-of-photo idea, maybe they smiled because the photographer smiled at them more, because the photographer was more familiar with them. Could by any number of reasons that the two things were correlated, all of which wouldn't necessarily imply that if you, reader, smile more, then you, reader, will live longer. Though that's probably true. But yeah, easy to forget that a smile itself is very much an effect of something else. Concluding that if you 'smile more', something good will happen is sort of a false optimization. Smarter to figure out what you should be smiling about. And if you're not, be in search of why. P.S. In other news, the New York Giants? Really? There's more concrete psychology in that Freudian slip. And then you look at who they chose for the info graphic. The Brooklin Dodgers? Nice try, Boston.