6 ms·
Embracing community helps us live longer, and be happier (2017)
- wing-_-nuts 3y agoOne of the biggest takeaways I got from 'Behave' is it isn't really nature vs nurture. Often one's 'nurture' (upbringing, and experiences) can change your epigenetics, and those with abusive childhoods have higher risks for all sorts of things including cardiovascular disease, cancer, autoimmune conditions and anxiety and depression. I'm not really sure everyone can chose 'joy'. Some simply don't have the innate temperament required to build strong relationships, and some have it literally beat out of them. Some folks are dealt a bad hand of both nature and nurture, and it makes me wonder the extent to which we 'choose' anything, or if we're all destined to mostly follow the ruts we're born into.
- nextos 3y agoGenetics is great, but a bitter lesson from the last decade for those who believed it was the major driver of disease is that the environment has a stronger effect. If we ignore Mendelian traits, i.e. rare diseases, ankylosing spondylitis and type 1 diabetes appear to have the largest contribution from genetics. Yet, penetrance is tiny. Genetics hardly explains more than 30-40% of phenotypic variance in those two. Most traits are largely determined by our nutrient supply, infections, eubiosis / dysbiosis, etc. The first year of life is particularly important.
- nyssos 3y ago> but a bitter lesson from the last decade for those who believed it was the major driver of disease is that the environment has a stronger effect. It doesn't make sense to talk about whether genes or environmental factors have stronger effects in general: they're very very very strongly interacting. It's not phenotype = genes + environment, it's phenotype = stupidly_complicated_function_we've_only_just_begun_to_understand(genes, environment). You can talk about the effects of genetic variation in a particular environment, or of environmental variation given fixed genetics, but "the contribution from [genetics/the environment]" without any further qualification is not a thing that exists.
- nextos 3y agoI know, but the dominant trend was to (try to) predict diseases by calculating genetic risk scores, ignoring any environmental contributions. This trend is even known as genetic determinism. There is a whole generation of senior academics who are fiercely attached to this line of thought.
- klipt 3y agoHow much better could you predict if you sequence both DNA and samples of expressed RNA from various parts of the body?
- dekhn 3y agoPersonally I think nyssos's explanation (that disease is a complex function of the joint distribution of genotype and environment) is still more convincing, and that the reason environment temporarily got more attention is simply that our ability to understand causality of disease in non-mendelian contexts is still very limited (it being an extremely complex function). I've worked in this field for a while and continuously get into arguments with geneticists, part of that is because I simply don't understand the explanations genetics gives (I'm a molecular biologist and computer scientist; the difference is that genenticists treat genotype to phenotype as a black box, while molecular biologists see it as an event system), but another part of it is that most scientists are highly susceptible to the streelight effect, and genetics is something tangible you can easily measure in the lab, while environment is... much more complicated.
- sizzle 3y agoDo you work as a computational biologist? I think the problems these scientists are trying to solve with computing power is fascinating. I’m working on human biomolecular data viz tools in a consortium of academic labs (Harvard, CMU, etc.) funded by the NIH. I really enjoy working with computational biologist. More info here if anyone is interested to collab or learn more, please reach out: https://www.nature.com/immersive/d42859-023-00019-y/index.html https://www.nature.com/immersive/d42859-023-00019-y/index.ht... https://portal.hubmapconsortium.org/ https://portal.hubmapconsortium.org/ (not mobile friendly)
- molsongolden 3y agoI haven't read Behave and childhood trauma can definitely have lasting impacts but I am also inspired by some of the older folks I have known with what seem like bottomless wells of joy. There's a cynical broken person out there for every one of them, they aren't the norm, but some of these people went through terrible shit as children or throughout their lives but they're still happy and grateful for what they did end up having. Also, some of the happiest people I know come from some of the worst starting environments. This is definitely survivorship bias because these people made it out to become happy but there's some thread between the two around grit and expectations then finding joy in the most basic things.
- brightball 3y agoIt’s one of the reason I appreciate Dabo Swinney’s life story so much. He had an awful childhood, broken home, poor as dirt, his mom shared his bed in college because they were so poor. And yet, he’s one of the most optimistic and successful leaders out there determined to show people that their conditions do not define them.
- zlg_codes 3y agoSurvivorship bias is strong. We only hear about the ones who 'make it'. Little more than footnotes for the countless who don't. Normies believe some people don't deserve a good life.
- noitamroftuo 3y agosapolsky has a new book, check it out on this pod https://www.econtalk.org/robert-sapolsky-on-determinism-free-will-and-responsibility/ https://www.econtalk.org/robert-sapolsky-on-determinism-free...
- zeteo 3y agoYes this seems backwards for at least some of the variables in the study. If you're in great health you're more likely to be joyful and to have good relationships with those around you. Saying that you should choose joy is like saying that you can avoid the worst health problems if you never go to hospital.
- temp0826 3y agoI think Harvard students would likely have more opportunities to choose joy so I'd take this all with some boulders of salt anyways.
- xyzelement 3y agoI would very much doubt that. Joy is in how you engage with the life you have. You can have a Harvard education and (for example) be envious of the guy next door, or let topics-of-the-day drive you crazy (eg: "I don't have kids because it's bad for the environment" or "I never got married, too busy with my career") And vice a versa, plenty of poor people find a way to be at peace with what they have (and even strive to do better w/o being resentful) , have families, etc.
- digging 3y ago> let topics-of-the-day drive you crazy Oh yeah, chasing fads and news cycles is miserable - > "I don't have kids because it's bad for the environment" or "I never got married, too busy with my career" There are, uh, extremely not "being driven crazy by topics-of-the-day." Let alone even being joyless choices.
- jtr1 3y ago> plenty of poor people find a way to be at peace with what they have (and even strive to do better w/o being resentful) , have families, etc. There is a definite floor to this definition of “poor” and a ton of people live below it.
- kridsdale3 3y agoThat is true. It's also true that truly happy people live in places in Africa with actually the bare minimum calories, barely functioning shelter, and not the best prospects for medicine.
- rqtwteye 3y agoHow do you know they are truly happy? I am sure they wouldn't mind proper food, housing and medical care.
- notShabu 3y agosometimes it's not even clearly good or bad. E.g. "sensitivity" as a trait can be useful in nurturing environments to develop it into talent, but also a way-in for trauma that would have otherwise bounced off of someone with less sensitivity.
- Eunoia12 3y agoTrue. I think people need more exposure to society. Maybe school implementation- social clubs, more sports incoporated, who knows. People in general should try, even at their jobs, to join in on events. Exposure helps people with being able to balance, as well as find themselves, on what works, and what doesn't work within their bubble. Bodies, as well as stress can be alleviated when you're surrounded by people. Even when you're in solitude, working in a public coffee shop can help too.
- zlg_codes 3y agoMy social experiences all trend negative, even when I gave my all and tried my best to fit in. At the end of the day, society demands we fit in a mold and be replaceable, and not everyone fits into that mold. People who are like that, do not have a community and would have to be completely different people to be accepted in a community in a healthy way.
- bowsamic 3y agoI totally agree. My mum left when I was 2, and my dad struggled to care for me well. I have been totally depressed from age 9 to today (age 29). My scientific career has failed due to it. I am totally unable to control it, no matter how much I try to change my circumstances or push through it
- atleastoptimal 3y agoEither way, the conditions/makeup of your conception, prenatal environment and first 3 years of your life are simultaneously the most consequential part of your life and the part of your life over which you have the least control. At least 80% of life outcomes, in terms of objective quality and mental health is determined by those factors.
- throwaway5Am1k 3y agoThis sounds like such a cop out. I've lived in low socioeconomic areas my whole life, went to school in them, played sports in them, been in communities in them. How many of these people have I met? 5? 10? The majority of people can, and should try and embrace good habits. Some structure, sleep, sunshine, exercise, community, etc.
- wing-_-nuts 3y agoTo some extent, yeah, we have 'free will'. I can chose my diet. I can chose to exercise. I can't chose my immune system or whether or not my temperament is predisposed to depression or asociality. Even if you try to fight against it, sometimes you're simply going to be swimming upstream your entire life. That's admirable, but tiring.
- akira2501 3y agoYes.. Harvard. Your actions matter more than your inheritance. I would love to see a study into the types of people who generate these studies.
- kubb 3y agoPeople often forget that belonging to a community and being able to connect with people is a privilege itself.
- mp05 3y agoSpot on. I grew up without real community thanks to a mother ashamed of her heritage in a pretty backwards part of America, so I missed out on a lot of critical interactions. I didn't realize how fundamentally, socially broken I was until my mid-late 20s.
- HPsquared 3y agoThis is the primary issue of the last 50 years.
- xyzelement 3y agoI think this is going to "prove religious people right" in the next generation because I find that folks of faith are immune from this!
- escapedmoose 3y agoChurchgoing/practicing folks of faith, maybe. There are plenty of religious folks who don’t partake in communal practice and who are generally miserable people. (By “religious folks” I mean “people who have spiritual beliefs aligning with a major religion”)
- quickthrower2 3y agoI wonder if volunteering is the answer for non religious people.
- shadowgovt 3y agoI believe this research project (an older instance of publishing follow-up results) was the subject of an Achewood comic to this effect. https://achewood.com/2016/04/15/title.html https://achewood.com/2016/04/15/title.html On the one hand: sure, it's useful to have some scientific, controlled grounding in the value of building community. On the other hand, any sad and lonely soul on the planet could probably have told us this without commissioning a nearly century-long research project.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoIf you are lonely, your body is being harmed as if you were an alcoholic. Surprising claim if true.
- 11235813213455 3y agowhat is "lonely"? I think one problem in our society is how binary we are, everything is on a ]0, 1[ scale instead of {0, 1}. We are all more or less schizophrenic, all more or less lonely. It's just finding the right cursor
- detourdog 3y agoWhat I’m starting to notice is that personality disorders represent normal traits used inappropriately. Once one notices they are reacting in a pattern instead of responding to actual events it becomes a disorder.
- otteromkram 3y agoLonely is being single and needing someone else (eg - friends, family, significant other) to quell the feeling of helplessness or disorder. Alone is being single and loving it. (I'm part of the latter group.)
- goatlover 3y agoAnd what of people who prefer solitude and limited social contact? Not everyone is an outgoing socialite. Some people gain energy by being alone.
- m0llusk 3y agoThis is from 2017. It would be nice if the title indicated that. There are ongoing results still coming out of this study.
- davidgerard 3y agoFake title
- mjfl 3y agoHappiness is a false idol. The key to happiness is to lower your standards for what you expect out of life. This leads to an uncreative state of being - because why would you create anything, the world is good as it is. And creating is just too hard. But this uncreative "last man" is someone that I certainly would not hold in esteem. Give me a tortured artist instead.
- escapedmoose 3y agoThe “tortured artist” trope is overplayed in media vs. the reality. I don’t have the sources on hand, but you might enjoy looking into it: truly prolific and influential artists tend to be those who had stable/comfortable/long enough lives to sustain an art practice. One good book related to this is Daily Rituals by Mason Currey. I also highly recommend the book Six Myths About the Good Life by Joel Kupperman, which has an accessible explanation of some of the philosophy behind the pursuit of “happiness” vs deeper long-term joy. It’s a book I find myself revisiting every few years because it really makes you think. Edit: Kupperman’s book specifically analyzes the common assumption you mentioned that “the key is to lower your standards.” …”Better Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied” is a common related saying
- oh_sigh 3y agoI don't think you have any evidence that happy people don't create anything.
- swatcoder 3y agoThought experiments can lead wherever you want them to. You can just as well think of happiness as a skill that one can hone and learn to practice in increasingly varied circumstances. Voila, it’s no longer part of some calculus of motivation at all. It’s just its own thing that one may or may not partake in. And likewise, you can just as well think of creating as a casually chosen option among countless ways to spend time. You do it if you want to do it, when you want to do it, because you may as well do something. Voila, it’s no longer reliant on the state of things around you or you’re mood. It’s just its own thing that one may or may not partake in. You can play the little thought experiment parlor trick to get you wherever you want to go. If you want to believe that artists only do what they do to escape suffering, that’s fine, but some of us opt for different thought experiments with different conclusions. In this case, it turns out that if you want to believe it, one can be happy and make stuff with no contradiction at all. Many of us here know that from first hand experience.
- elromulous 3y ago@dang could you add "(2017)" to the title?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Eunoia12 3y agoI'm noticing a lot of cynical people in society. People that just sneer, look down, and just think on terms that are just so malevolent- he/she attitude. I think a healthier generation of people- being rooted from education, are much more prone to being a better counterpart. Such as maintaining peace, as well as just having healthy boundaries. But in longer stretches, I believe that people should be more understanding. Steven Pinker mentions in his books that optimism as well as just awareness that society will continue on- despite a lot of evils, life will continue, and choosing to be positive is a better approach than being pessimistic.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago[dead]
- hnthrowaway0315 3y agoJoy is too expensive. A lot of joys actually trace back to gene so eventually it's a fateful world.
- paganel 3y ago> The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80 Most probably the people who were already sick at age 50 were in a "less" satisfied relationship, on account of the fact that sickness is never a good conduit for having a happy love life. So of course that those people most probably went on to have a worse health at age 80 (because they were already sick by age 50) compared to people who had had been healthier (and happier, partly because healthier) at age 50.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- waterhouse 3y agoThe question is always: does the study show causality? "The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80". Can we think of ways that, for example, health problems at ages 45-50 cause (a) dissatisfaction in relationships at age 50 and (b) worse health problems at age 80? Did they control for that? (Is it possible to control for that? Even if they have their full clinical history, is it possible that problems that, at age 50, were subclinical—or "not reported to the doctor"—would have significant effects?)
- giantg2 3y agoI've previously wondered how this affects nuerodiverse individuals. After all, relationships and social interactions tend to be different, limited, or both.
- rexpop 3y agoCouple of books on this theme: 1. Putnam's Bowling Alone cites sociological sources 2. Ehrenreich's Dancing in the Streets cited historical sources 3. Liming's Hanging Out cites autobiographical and literary sources.
- zlg_codes 3y agoNot everyone has a community, nor will they be able to find one. The conventional wisdom is 'just be yourself' or 'fake it till you make it' but that's all BS and self delusion. Sometimes, there really isn't anyone out there to connect with in a way that's going to be good for you. That's humanity for you.