7 ms·

More likely: "People who live 85 or more have more of the good things like health and safe environment which also makes them optimistic."

has2k1 7y ago
It is possible to imagine a potential casual process that leads to earlier death. What if pessimism creates a constant presence of key stress hormones (Adrenaline, Cortisol and Norepinephrine) and these are already linked to higher likelihoods of heart disease, cancer, ...
- trevyn 7y ago
  Or maybe it’s acausal — some fires burn brighter, but they know that they will die sooner.
- wozniacki 7y ago
  I'm sure it would seem like there is a link between the two somewhere, even if it is very threadbare or even spurious for that matter. More principally, these things just seem very believable because being optimistic is just a positive attribute that society rewards and approves of much more than it does pessimism (some would say being pessimistic is almost an universal negative, some outlier societies notwithstanding). This imparts a definite bias in the believability of the study, no matter what the findings of the study actually are - even if the study were to only indicate a mild association between being optimistic and longevity. Just consider the findings of a study from some years ago: "High social status has its privileges when it comes to aging – even in wild animals." ... “High-ranking members in hyena clans reproduce more, they live longer and appear to be in better overall health,” said Nora Lewin, MSU doctoral student of zoology and co-lead author. “If you want to see the hierarchy of spotted hyenas, throw down some fresh meat near them. It’s quickly apparent who’s dominant and who’s not.” ... Lewin and her teammates focused on telomeres, caps at the end of each strand of DNA that protect chromosomes from deterioration. These biomarkers are regarded as important signs of aging and stress in many species, including humans. Shrinking telomeres are a signal that cells are sliding into defensive mode, stressful actions that could soon lead to cells’ – and to the organism’s – death. “This work shows, for the first time, the effects of social rank on telomere length in wild mammals,” Lewin said. “This enhances our understanding of how social and ecological variables may contribute to age-related declines of hyenas, and in organisms in general.”[1] High social status humans live longer lives is the natural assumption here even if the suggestion is only mild. Such stuff seems more believable due to a chain of assumptions about - low status mammals, stress levels, food security, likelihood of physical harm etc. Its safe to assume those, it would seem - however light the actual evidence for it. There are scores of studies like this with very light suggestive conclusions yet the believability is high. I just wish these things are fleshed out with a lot more rigor and thoroughness by the science journalists or journalists at large. This isn't trivial, easily ignored stuff. These things have real world consequences if true. Very palpable, sizable and profound consequences on people's lives. [1] Social Status Has Impact On Overall Health of Mammals https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/social-status-has-impact-on-overall-health-of-mammals/ https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/social-status-has-impact-...
  - has2k1 7y ago
    Thanks for the excerpt of the study, it is interesting. As persistent stress causes visible signs of aging, for example the seemingly accelerated growth of gray hair and wrinkles of U.S presidents, it is not big a leap to suspect more.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  Sure. But every single study like this goes to an RCT finds causation runs the other way.
- rzzzt 7y ago
  What if the constant presence of stress hormones makes people more prone to pessimism?
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    What if pessimists are less likely to engage in self-preserving or self-improving behaviour (because why bother), creating a self-sustaining negative feedback loop?
    - rzzzt 7y ago
      Yes.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    Not the optimistic angle we're trying to foster here!
  - achenatx 7y ago
    Anecdotally, Ive been very fortunate to have a positive brain chemistry. When bad things have happened, my brain pretty much doesn't worry on them. Eventually things work out (or something good eventually happens) and I get through the bad times. There is no way to explain or describe this positive brain chemistry in a way that anyone can believe. But since I was a kid, my parents have been worried that Im too happy as they know dissatisfaction is what drives people to achieve. They would say things like "your only problem is you are too happy". I havent lived to 85 yet though, so who knows.
    - Gravityloss 7y ago
      I do annoying things to avoid bad things from happening in the future. If one is very optimistic, then one would not believe the bad things would happen and thus one would not be very motivated to do the annoying things. For example do you wear a seat belt or brush your teeth? I know the questions may sound a bit offensive but I'm honestly interested in hearing people's motivations.
craftinator 7y ago
You beat me to this by 5 minutes. It seems pretty obvious that the path of causation tends in this direction, rather than the other. And even if there is a signal going the other direction, extracting it from the noise caused by "people who have health and financial stability" seems impossible, unless the sample group were all of people who have lived to at least 85 without having these traits.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  "seems pretty obvious" is not how science works
  - craftinator 7y ago
    Thank you for your fantastic insight! If you read the part of my comment that is not the first sentence, you'll see where I give logical reasoning supporting that first sentence... Sort of how a paper supports it's abstract. "Seems pretty obvious" translates to "becomes clear with simple logical reasoning", probably should have revised that for the snob crowd. I actually prefer logical reasoning in my science, what about you?
dclowd9901 7y ago
If you read the article, the study accounts for influencing factors.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  It's not a discussion about influencing factors, it's a discussion about causality.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jyounker 7y ago
There is a lot of data over many decades that supports the expectation that optimism (which ISTR has pretty clear a definition) creates all sorts of positive life event outcomes. (e.g. you're more likely to succeed in whatever endeavors you choose if you're optimistic, which in turn tends to create a safe and supportive environment.)
- tomp 7y ago
  How could you possibly measure that? By the time that children even understand the concept of “optimism” (or even “future”), they have already had years (decades?) of positive or negative signals (either from their environment, or from their genes) that likely cause both optimism and success (such as non-abusive parents, health, etc.).
  - watwut 7y ago
    If you assume that everything will turn out bad, you wont even try. If you assume all people around you are assholes, you wont even try good relationships. Plus, people like better optimistically looking people and reward them more then pessimistic people with equal merit. Moreover, outward apparent optimism create illusion of success even when there is not actual real success backing it. (The optimism does not even have to be real, you just have to be committed to consistently pretend it.)
    - dasil003 7y ago
      Very much this. I feel the same way about free will. It’s empowering to believe in it whether or not it’s technically true.
    - katzgrau 7y ago
      This is the root of it, and something most on HN won't accept. Optimistic people generally see and seek opportunity (either knowingly or unknowingly) more frequently than pessimists.
      - 7y ago
mindfulgeek 7y ago
Some of the most positive people I’ve met have lived in the worst of circumstances. The mind decides what it wants about the situation. Optimism is a powerful tool, even if only the person using it can feel the difference.
- tomp 7y ago
  But that’s not what’s being discussed. Does optimism actually make you live a longer and more successful life, or is your life equally short and shitty, you just enjoy it more?
  - atq2119 7y ago
    If you enjoy it more, it's less shitty by definition...
  - mensetmanusman 7y ago
    Many of the wealthiest people are unhappy
    - katzgrau 7y ago
      Wealth is a poor measure of success. In fact, I'd argue it's a side effect of success.
asdfman123 7y ago
I thought that too, but then read the second paragraph: > That finding was independent of other factors thought to influence life's length — such as "socioeconomic status, health conditions, depression, social integration, and health behaviors," the researchers from Boston University School of Medicine and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health say.
- abecedarius 7y ago
  "Controlling for Confounders Is Harder than You Think" https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152719 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
  - mensetmanusman 7y ago
    Hard, but not impossible.
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    That paper is about assessing incremental validity, not every situation regarding confounders. This paper is not about incremental validity. The above does not apply.

has2k1 7y ago

It is possible to imagine a potential casual process that leads to earlier death. What if pessimism creates a constant presence of key stress hormones (Adrenaline, Cortisol and Norepinephrine) and these are already linked to higher likelihoods of heart disease, cancer, ...

trevyn 7y ago
Or maybe it’s acausal — some fires burn brighter, but they know that they will die sooner.
wozniacki 7y ago
I'm sure it would seem like there is a link between the two somewhere, even if it is very threadbare or even spurious for that matter. More principally, these things just seem very believable because being optimistic is just a positive attribute that society rewards and approves of much more than it does pessimism (some would say being pessimistic is almost an universal negative, some outlier societies notwithstanding). This imparts a definite bias in the believability of the study, no matter what the findings of the study actually are - even if the study were to only indicate a mild association between being optimistic and longevity. Just consider the findings of a study from some years ago: "High social status has its privileges when it comes to aging – even in wild animals." ... “High-ranking members in hyena clans reproduce more, they live longer and appear to be in better overall health,” said Nora Lewin, MSU doctoral student of zoology and co-lead author. “If you want to see the hierarchy of spotted hyenas, throw down some fresh meat near them. It’s quickly apparent who’s dominant and who’s not.” ... Lewin and her teammates focused on telomeres, caps at the end of each strand of DNA that protect chromosomes from deterioration. These biomarkers are regarded as important signs of aging and stress in many species, including humans. Shrinking telomeres are a signal that cells are sliding into defensive mode, stressful actions that could soon lead to cells’ – and to the organism’s – death. “This work shows, for the first time, the effects of social rank on telomere length in wild mammals,” Lewin said. “This enhances our understanding of how social and ecological variables may contribute to age-related declines of hyenas, and in organisms in general.”[1] High social status humans live longer lives is the natural assumption here even if the suggestion is only mild. Such stuff seems more believable due to a chain of assumptions about - low status mammals, stress levels, food security, likelihood of physical harm etc. Its safe to assume those, it would seem - however light the actual evidence for it. There are scores of studies like this with very light suggestive conclusions yet the believability is high. I just wish these things are fleshed out with a lot more rigor and thoroughness by the science journalists or journalists at large. This isn't trivial, easily ignored stuff. These things have real world consequences if true. Very palpable, sizable and profound consequences on people's lives. [1] Social Status Has Impact On Overall Health of Mammals https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/social-status-has-impact-on-overall-health-of-mammals/ https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/social-status-has-impact-...
- has2k1 7y ago
  Thanks for the excerpt of the study, it is interesting. As persistent stress causes visible signs of aging, for example the seemingly accelerated growth of gray hair and wrinkles of U.S presidents, it is not big a leap to suspect more.
JamesBarney 7y ago
Sure. But every single study like this goes to an RCT finds causation runs the other way.
rzzzt 7y ago
What if the constant presence of stress hormones makes people more prone to pessimism?
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  What if pessimists are less likely to engage in self-preserving or self-improving behaviour (because why bother), creating a self-sustaining negative feedback loop?
  - rzzzt 7y ago
    Yes.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Not the optimistic angle we're trying to foster here!
- achenatx 7y ago
  Anecdotally, Ive been very fortunate to have a positive brain chemistry. When bad things have happened, my brain pretty much doesn't worry on them. Eventually things work out (or something good eventually happens) and I get through the bad times. There is no way to explain or describe this positive brain chemistry in a way that anyone can believe. But since I was a kid, my parents have been worried that Im too happy as they know dissatisfaction is what drives people to achieve. They would say things like "your only problem is you are too happy". I havent lived to 85 yet though, so who knows.
  - Gravityloss 7y ago
    I do annoying things to avoid bad things from happening in the future. If one is very optimistic, then one would not believe the bad things would happen and thus one would not be very motivated to do the annoying things. For example do you wear a seat belt or brush your teeth? I know the questions may sound a bit offensive but I'm honestly interested in hearing people's motivations.

craftinator 7y ago

You beat me to this by 5 minutes. It seems pretty obvious that the path of causation tends in this direction, rather than the other. And even if there is a signal going the other direction, extracting it from the noise caused by "people who have health and financial stability" seems impossible, unless the sample group were all of people who have lived to at least 85 without having these traits.

lonelappde 7y ago
"seems pretty obvious" is not how science works
- craftinator 7y ago
  Thank you for your fantastic insight! If you read the part of my comment that is not the first sentence, you'll see where I give logical reasoning supporting that first sentence... Sort of how a paper supports it's abstract. "Seems pretty obvious" translates to "becomes clear with simple logical reasoning", probably should have revised that for the snob crowd. I actually prefer logical reasoning in my science, what about you?

dclowd9901 7y ago

If you read the article, the study accounts for influencing factors.

ekianjo 7y ago
It's not a discussion about influencing factors, it's a discussion about causality.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jyounker 7y ago

There is a lot of data over many decades that supports the expectation that optimism (which ISTR has pretty clear a definition) creates all sorts of positive life event outcomes. (e.g. you're more likely to succeed in whatever endeavors you choose if you're optimistic, which in turn tends to create a safe and supportive environment.)

tomp 7y ago
How could you possibly measure that? By the time that children even understand the concept of “optimism” (or even “future”), they have already had years (decades?) of positive or negative signals (either from their environment, or from their genes) that likely cause both optimism and success (such as non-abusive parents, health, etc.).
- watwut 7y ago
  If you assume that everything will turn out bad, you wont even try. If you assume all people around you are assholes, you wont even try good relationships. Plus, people like better optimistically looking people and reward them more then pessimistic people with equal merit. Moreover, outward apparent optimism create illusion of success even when there is not actual real success backing it. (The optimism does not even have to be real, you just have to be committed to consistently pretend it.)
  - dasil003 7y ago
    Very much this. I feel the same way about free will. It’s empowering to believe in it whether or not it’s technically true.
  - katzgrau 7y ago
    This is the root of it, and something most on HN won't accept. Optimistic people generally see and seek opportunity (either knowingly or unknowingly) more frequently than pessimists.
    - 7y ago

mindfulgeek 7y ago

Some of the most positive people I’ve met have lived in the worst of circumstances. The mind decides what it wants about the situation. Optimism is a powerful tool, even if only the person using it can feel the difference.

tomp 7y ago
But that’s not what’s being discussed. Does optimism actually make you live a longer and more successful life, or is your life equally short and shitty, you just enjoy it more?
- atq2119 7y ago
  If you enjoy it more, it's less shitty by definition...
- mensetmanusman 7y ago
  Many of the wealthiest people are unhappy
  - katzgrau 7y ago
    Wealth is a poor measure of success. In fact, I'd argue it's a side effect of success.

asdfman123 7y ago

I thought that too, but then read the second paragraph: > That finding was independent of other factors thought to influence life's length — such as "socioeconomic status, health conditions, depression, social integration, and health behaviors," the researchers from Boston University School of Medicine and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health say.

abecedarius 7y ago
"Controlling for Confounders Is Harder than You Think" https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0152719 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
- mensetmanusman 7y ago
  Hard, but not impossible.
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  That paper is about assessing incremental validity, not every situation regarding confounders. This paper is not about incremental validity. The above does not apply.