Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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-...




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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: