Optimists live longer and healthier lives: study

[ray245]

Yahoo!/ Reuters

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Optimists live longer, healthier lives than pessimists, U.S. researchers said on Thursday in a study that may give pessimists one more reason to grumble.
Related Articles

Researchers at University of Pittsburgh looked at rates of death and chronic health conditions among participants of the Women's Health Initiative study, which has followed more than 100,000 women ages 50 and over since 1994.

Women who were optimistic -- those who expect good rather than bad things to happen -- were 14 percent less likely to die from any cause than pessimists and 30 percent less likely to die from heart disease after eight years of follow up in the study.

Optimists also were also less likely to have high blood pressure, diabetes or smoke cigarettes.

The team, led Dr. Hilary Tindle, also looked at women who were highly mistrustful of other people -- a group they called "cynically hostile" -- and compared them with women who were more trusting.

Women in the cynically hostile group tended to agree with questions such as: "I've often had to take orders from someone who didn't know as much as I did" or "It's safest to trust nobody," Tindle said in a telephone interview.

"These questions prove a general mistrust of people," said Tindle, who presented her study Thursday at the American Psychosomatic Society's annual meeting in Chicago.

That kind of thinking takes a toll.

"Cynically hostile women were 16 percent more likely to die (during the study period) compared to women who were the least cynically hostile," Tindle said.

They were also 23 percent more likely to die from cancer.

Tindle said the study does not prove negative attitudes cause negative health effects, but she said the findings do appear to be linked in some way.

"I think we really need more research to design therapies that will target people's attitudes to see if they can be modified and if that modification is beneficial to health," she said.

And she said while a pessimist might think, "'I'm doomed. There is nothing I can do,' I'm not sure that's true," Tindle said. "We just don't know."

(Editing by Maggie Fox)

To all our doomsday fans out there, stop looking at the world in a negative light or the future as a dark one, we can easily proceed to have a better life if we push the rest of the society forward.

[Forum Troll]

To a degree that's true.

However, correlation can't just be equated to causation. Do happy, optimistic people live much longer on average? No doubt. Yet probably much of the difference is that their life circumstances have often gone better, whether financially, avoiding abusive relationships, staying in good health, or in other regards. That in turn makes them more likely to be happy and optimistic, but it doesn't mean that the optimism itself was the primary first cause of their lives being better.

Too excessive, naive optimism like trusting every stranger to never be a potential criminal or failing to build up savings for emergencies would just more often lead to disaster.

With that said, stress is known to affect blood pressure and the risk of a heart attack. So prepare for the worst but do so calmly without excess emotional worry about it, only rational action, and being well-prepared should help you feel comfortable.

[defanatic]

To a degree that's true.

However, correlation can't just be equated to causation. Do happy, optimistic people live much longer on average? No doubt. Yet probably much of the difference is that their life circumstances have often gone better, whether financially, avoiding abusive relationships, staying in good health, or in other regards. That in turn makes them more likely to be happy and optimistic, but it doesn't mean that the optimism itself was the primary first cause of their lives being better.

Yes. Causation could be the opposite way around to the way the article portrays it.

I personally like to hedge my bets and have contingency plans.

[Akkleptos]

To a degree that's true.

However, correlation can't just be equated to causation. Do happy, optimistic people live much longer on average? No doubt. Yet probably much of the difference is that their life circumstances have often gone better, whether financially, avoiding abusive relationships, staying in good health, or in other regards. That in turn makes them more likely to be happy and optimistic, but it doesn't mean that the optimism itself was the primary first cause of their lives being better.

Good point. Maybe a good idea for a study would be trying to find out whether many things in their life go better because they keep a positive attitude or they have a positive attitude because things go well in their life.

Too excessive, naive optimism like trusting every stranger to never be a potential criminal or failing to build up savings for emergencies would just more often lead to disaster.

In Psychology we have a specialised, highly-technical term for that brand of "optimism": stupidity

Also, it's noteworthy that people who have a distinctly negative outlook on life and people tend to be bitter and cynical to a certain extent, and this very fact could be greatly influencing how they relate to others, which in turn would have a negative impact on their worklife, lovelife, and pretty much any other [noun]-life.

And let's not forget that it's been quite established that stress significantly affects our bodily health. This means that if you spend an important amount of your waking hours worrying about stuff you can't do anything about, fearing the worse, et cætera; expecting a measurable -bad- effect on your health would not be particularly suprising. Inversely, it's also been established by medical research that people suffering from chronic, degenerative or terminal ailments fare muich better and have longer life expectancies than those in a similar situation who have a grimmer perspective.

[TheLostVikings]

To a degree that's true.

However, correlation can't just be equated to causation. Do happy, optimistic people live much longer on average? No doubt. Yet probably much of the difference is that their life circumstances have often gone better, whether financially, avoiding abusive relationships, staying in good health, or in other regards. That in turn makes them more likely to be happy and optimistic, but it doesn't mean that the optimism itself was the primary first cause of their lives being better.

Good point. Maybe a good idea for a study would be trying to find out whether many things in their life go better because they keep a positive attitude or they have a positive attitude because things go well in their life.

I read a study about something like that a few years back, one of the things I can remember is that pessimistic/unlucky people tend to look at the ground in front of them as they walk, while optimistic/lucky people tend to look up/forwards and around them. Apparently this tended to cause the pessimistic people to miss more opportunities, (for good things) compared to the optimistic ones, simply because they didn't get a chance to see them in the first place.

Self fulfilling prophecies at work it seems. I found it interesting to say the least.

[Kanastrous]

That's right, doomsayers! Adopt a sunnier outlook and you'll improve your chances of living long enough to see everything collapse, for real!

My 89-year-old father's advice for living a long, healthy, happy life: Don't get so worked up about everything. Relax, you'll live longer and happier. Look at me.

[ray245]

That's right, doomsayers! Adopt a sunnier outlook and you'll improve your chances of living long enough to see everything collapse, for real!

My 89-year-old father's advice for living a long, healthy, happy life: Don't get so worked up about everything. Relax, you'll live longer and happier. Look at me.

Well, instead of adopting a pessimistic view or optimistic view in regards to the world, we can always view the world in a realistic manner.

Any major disaster does not mean the end is here, it is an chance for us to improve and learn from our mistakes. When things seems good, prepare for the worse, when things are bad, aim and work towards a better future.

[Surlethe]

Split open_sketchbook's one-liner. (Actually, it was a contentless two-liner, but I'm not one to quibble details.) Kanastrous, your pithy comment just barely toes the line.

[Tahlan]

Closely related to the Time article The Biology of Belief where the evidence is that people of faith live longer than non-believers. Imagine, the studies show that believers live longer than athiests. Not good news for the atheists on this board. Talk about irony: a fundie living longer than most of the participants on this board, because the fundie prays for health and believes that there is a God that can and will answer the prayer. That's truly ironic.

[TheLostVikings]

Closely related to the Time article The Biology of Belief where the evidence is that people of faith live longer than non-believers. Imagine, the studies show that believers live longer than athiests. Not good news for the atheists on this board. Talk about irony: a fundie living longer than most of the participants on this board, because the fundie prays for health and believes that there is a God that can and will answer the prayer. That's truly ironic.

One of the countries with the highest average age is Japan, and they are pretty nonreligious... please try again ;P

[Tahlan]

Closely related to the Time article The Biology of Belief where the evidence is that people of faith live longer than non-believers. Imagine, the studies show that believers live longer than athiests. Not good news for the atheists on this board. Talk about irony: a fundie living longer than most of the participants on this board, because the fundie prays for health and believes that there is a God that can and will answer the prayer. That's truly ironic.

One of the countries with the highest average age is Japan, and they are pretty nonreligious... please try again ;P

One, read the article. Two, back up your statement with proof.

[Darth Wong]

Closely related to the Time article The Biology of Belief where the evidence is that people of faith live longer than non-believers. Imagine, the studies show that believers live longer than athiests. Not good news for the atheists on this board. Talk about irony: a fundie living longer than most of the participants on this board, because the fundie prays for health and believes that there is a God that can and will answer the prayer. That's truly ironic.

The article does not say what you think it says:

People who attend religious services do have a lower risk of dying in any one year than people who don't attend. People who believe in a loving God fare better after a diagnosis of illness than people who believe in a punitive God.

Pray and meditate enough and some changes in the brain become permanent. Long-term meditators — those with 15 years of practice or more — appear to have thicker frontal lobes than nonmeditators. People who describe themselves as highly spiritual tend to exhibit an asymmetry in the thalamus — a feature that other people can develop after just eight weeks of training in meditation skills.

But there is one thing on which both camps agree: when you're setting up your study, it matters a great deal whether subjects know they're being prayed for. Give them even a hint as to whether they're in the prayer group or a control group and the famed placebo effect can blow your data to bits.

The fact is that the studies do not say anything about atheists. Since atheists comprise such a small proportion of the population, the studies are overwhelmingly concerned with people who believe in God but who have more or less church attendance. The social aspect of church attendance is obviously the primary driver here. Eastern religions (which are often atheistic if you look at their actual beliefs) fare just as well or better, because they incorporate meditation. And finally, fundies who believe in a vengeful angry God actually receive a negative benefit.

You're demonstrating one of the great problems with fundies: they don't bother reading half the things they proudly tout in their favour.

[Covenant]

Closely related to the Time article The Biology of Belief where the evidence is that people of faith live longer than non-believers. Imagine, the studies show that believers live longer than athiests. Not good news for the atheists on this board. Talk about irony: a fundie living longer than most of the participants on this board, because the fundie prays for health and believes that there is a God that can and will answer the prayer. That's truly ironic.

One of the countries with the highest average age is Japan, and they are pretty nonreligious... please try again ;P

One, read the article. Two, back up your statement with proof.

One, Japan is 3rd on a list of countries sorted by life expectancy. The United States is 45th. The difference is approximately four years.

Two, Japan is a country of people who do not consider religion heavily important to their lives.

And when I read the article, I saw nothing but a lot of hand-waving, so it isn't unfair for TLV to bring up Japan as a counterpoint, given that they don't pray or worship the same way Western religions do, or feel the need for that kind of Church attendance (or Church at all). One cannot even point to temple visitation as being similar to Church services, since you do little in terms of close-knit socializing that way. Even the most stirring evidence for some benefit, the concept of regular church attendance being beneficial to overall health, just proves that people work best as a closely-knit community and that religion is a poor substitute for a non-discriminatory community outreach organization. A cultural emphasis on caring for your elderly, as we see more in Japanese culture than Western culture, would account for why the numbers seem to follow the trend of larger groups more ably caring for their weaker members. Which is kinda a no duh comment.

Even the most broadly examined studies show that fundies don't live longer because of prayer, they'd live longer because of the decreased stress levels and the placebo effect of thinking you're getting better. They may feel more optimistic and carefree about things because they believe it'll all get rewarded later, but that's really not much of a fair trade. An extra year or two of life in exchange for pain and suffering to others? No good, if you ask me. Plus, this has less to do with religion than outlook and quality of care. A doctor that does everything they can to uplift you will be more effective than a depressing one, to be certain. But all that worrying over hellfire and judgement and damnation for themselves or their children or other people, that can't be good for you either.

I'd say that a lack of faith also helps engineer a society that allows you to depend more on others and live longer, rather than a divided and judgemental one that leaves it to placebo effects. If we dumped religion and researched stem cells and quality medicine, we'd live a lot longer and be a whole lot more optimistic than if we let the fundamentalists drag us all back to the mud-stacking middle ages.

[Tahlan]

OK. Although I intended my statement as humorous, no offense intended, I'll play ball.

The fact is that the studies do not say anything about atheists.

All right, I'm busted on that point. The article does not even mention atheists. I made a generalization and lumped atheists in with "those who never attend religious services." My bad. The article actually said:

"Those who never attend religious services have twice the risk of dying over the next eight years as people who attend once a week....church attendance accounts for two to three additional years of life....joining a flock and living longer do appear to be linked."

So, yes, you're right. Atheists aren't mentioned, and the key is "church attendance" versus "those who never attend religious services." But the general point is that weekly church attendance and living longer do appear to be linked.

Since atheists comprise such a small proportion of the population, the studies are overwhelmingly concerned with people who believe in God but who have more or less church attendance. The social aspect of church attendance is obviously the primary driver here. Eastern religions (which are often atheistic if you look at their actual beliefs) fare just as well or better, because they incorporate meditation.

Now, that last statement is out of the blue. I quickly scanned the article again, but could not find a statement or reference to "Eastern religions" and that they "fare just as well or better." Although there is a reference to Hindus and a comment about how many times they fast during the year and that these fasts may lead to a state of clarity and even euphoria, but nothing about "living longer," which was my original point. By your own admission, "the studies are overwhelmingly concerned with people who believe in God..." and as best I recall, Hindus do not believe in God, and thus are not part of the population in the studies. So, do you have proof that "Eastern religions (which are often atheistic if you look at their actual beliefs) fare just as well or better, because they incorporate meditation." and thus live longer?

You're demonstrating one of the great problems with fundies: they don't bother reading half the things they proudly tout in their favour.

Now that was just plain mean: comparing me to, or insinuating that, I'm a fundie. That truly hurts.

[TheLostVikings]

One, read the article. Two, back up your statement with proof.

Proof already posted, and as for your own statements you might want to find some actual "proof" yourself.

A similar analysis by Daniel Hall, an Episcopal priest and a surgeon at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, found that church attendance accounts for two to three additional years of life. To be sure, he also found that exercise accounts for three to five extra years and statin therapy for 2.5 to 3.5. Still, joining a flock and living longer do appear to be linked. (Read "The Year in Medicine 2008: From A to Z.")

Sooo by your own "evidence" renouncing your faith and replace churchgoing with going to the gym would result in a net increase of two years... Not exactly what I would consider evidence for "people of faith living longer"

[Tahlan]

Proof already posted,

To begin, part of the "proof" that is "already posted" (not your own work, when I challenged you to back up your derisive statement with proof) is a non-scientific study by whomever based upon "241" responses of Japanese "pen-pals." 241 pen-pal responses out of a population of 127.3 million people is scientific proof and indicative of the entire Japanese culture? That may be proof for you, but please forgive me if I look at it skeptically and take it with a grain of salt. (He says, falling on the floor, rolling over, and laughing out loud.)

A similar analysis by Daniel Hall, an Episcopal priest and a surgeon at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, found that church attendance accounts for two to three additional years of life. To be sure, he also found that exercise accounts for three to five extra years and statin therapy for 2.5 to 3.5. Still, joining a flock and living longer do appear to be linked. (Read "The Year in Medicine 2008: From A to Z.")

Sooo by your own "evidence" renouncing your faith and replace churchgoing with going to the gym would result in a net increase of two years... Not exactly what I would consider evidence for "people of faith living longer"

What? OK. Call me obtuse, but you lost me on that bit of cognitive reasoning; unless you mean you just don't like the evidence, which is your call. I won't dispute that; that's your prerogative.

But the TIME article I quoted does state, I think unequivocally, that "those who never attend religious services have twice the risk of dying over the next eight years as people who attend once a week" and "that church attendance accounts for two to three additional years of life."

My initial comment (which got me into all this trouble in the first place when I was trying to be, and failing miserably at being funny) was generally that people of faith live longer than atheists, and the irony of that fact. On one point I was wrong because the TIME article makes no reference to atheists. That was a generalization I made when I lumped atheists into the group of people who do not attend religious services. My bad.

However, I think it is humorous (or at least ironic) that people who go to church and putativley believe in God (a God that atheists believe doesn't exist) may live longer than those people who don't go to church. All differences, animosity, and antagonism aside...but isn't that the least bit ironic?

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

A similar analysis by Daniel Hall, an Episcopal priest and a surgeon at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, found that church attendance accounts for two to three additional years of life. To be sure, he also found that exercise accounts for three to five extra years and statin therapy for 2.5 to 3.5. Still, joining a flock and living longer do appear to be linked. (Read "The Year in Medicine 2008: From A to Z.")

Sooo by your own "evidence" renouncing your faith and replace churchgoing with going to the gym would result in a net increase of two years... Not exactly what I would consider evidence for "people of faith living longer"

What? OK. Call me obtuse, but you lost me on that bit of cognitive reasoning; unless you mean you just don't like the evidence, which is your call. I won't dispute that; that's your prerogative.

Are you really this stupid, or are you just trolling for lulz? I'll put it in big letters for you.

...church attendance accounts for two to three additional years of life. To be sure, he also found that exercise accounts for three to five extra years and statin therapy for 2.5 to 3.5

In other words, there are things you can do that have fuck-all to do with religion that will give you just as much life-extending bonus as going to church.

But the TIME article I quoted does state, I think unequivocally, that "those who never attend religious services have twice the risk of dying over the next eight years as people who attend once a week" and "that church attendance accounts for two to three additional years of life."

As has been pointed out to you, several times now, there are other things you can do which give the same life-extending benefits. Also, the brain changes that come from religious activities can be conferred with a mere eight weeks of meditation training. As stated by the godsdamned article you posted.

My initial comment (which got me into all this trouble in the first place when I was trying to be, and failing miserably at being funny)

Trolling it is, then.

However, I think it is humorous (or at least ironic) that people who go to church and putativley believe in God (a God that atheists believe doesn't exist) may live longer than those people who don't go to church. All differences, animosity, and antagonism aside...but isn't that the least bit ironic?

Oh hey, let's gloss over the points the article actually made. A person may see life-extending benefits by going to church and whose views of the spiritual world are benevolent and loving. A person may also see such benefits through meditation, which has absolutely fuck-all to do with religion as meditation is a form of bio-feedback. A person may also see those benefits simply by being part of a cohesive community, or eating right and exercising.

On the other hand, as the article stated, a person who believes in the jerkass fire-and-brimstone gods, will recieve a negative life-extension benefit.

[Darth Wong]

Now, that last statement is out of the blue. I quickly scanned the article again, but could not find a statement or reference to "Eastern religions"

Open your eyes. The articles goes on at length about the benefits of meditation and fasting: both practices common in eastern religions. It even says that there are neurological changes associated with long-term meditation. Christians don't meditate; they pray.

So, do you have proof that "Eastern religions (which are often atheistic if you look at their actual beliefs) fare just as well or better, because they incorporate meditation." and thus live longer?

I've got as much proof as you do of your assertion; The article you cite is only a meta-article, ie- it is not a study of any kind, but rather, a journalist's attempt to summarize his understanding of other studies. That is no more credible than anything that anyone else has pointed out here. He doesn't even describe any of the methodology of the studies involved, which makes one wonder if he even read any of them beyond the abstract, nor did he give any indication of what level of peer review these studies had undergone.

You're demonstrating one of the great problems with fundies: they don't bother reading half the things they proudly tout in their favour.

Now that was just plain mean: comparing me to, or insinuating that, I'm a fundie. That truly hurts.

You're acting like one.

[Rye]

By your own admission, "the studies are overwhelmingly concerned with people who believe in God..." and as best I recall, Hindus do not believe in God, and thus are not part of the population in the studies.

Hindus don't believe in God? Then what the fuck is Brahman? They're polytheistic, they believe in far more gods than the average Christian. I am also astounded you don't know that meditation is a trait from Eastern religions.

Now that was just plain mean: comparing me to, or insinuating that, I'm a fundie. That truly hurts.

Given how little you understand of world religions, the sheltering and ignorance typical of a fundie upbringing makes sense after analysing your responses.

If religious people lived longer than atheists it would not be especially ironic. Sad, yes, but not ironic.

[Covenant]

I'll presume, for the moment, that you are not a fundie and merely fucked up a bad joke.

However, I think it is humorous (or at least ironic) that people who go to church and putativley believe in God (a God that atheists believe doesn't exist) may live longer than those people who don't go to church. All differences, animosity, and antagonism aside...but isn't that the least bit ironic?

You also gotta remember, they didn't establish a quantity of belief, just of Church attendance. I attended Church regularly for a few years, once a week with youth meetings, and it didn't stem from a devotion or faith at all, but I still would have counted for the purposes of the study as a "regular attender." Since the veracity of belief varies greatly by individual, what the study has shown is simply that close-knit communities with regular group socialization events centered around an uplifting and optimistic message lead to a small but measurable increase in general life expectancy.

That's not ironic, that's common sense. Churches offer people a chance to get through hard times, deal with sadness and loss, and share the good times with others. There's ways to find a mate, people to share the burden of raising children, and dip into an increased pool of funds to help people pay for problems if the congregation feels moved to do so. Center it around a message of anger and cruelty like some Churches do and you see those benefits fade, and if attendance slackens your social bonds weaken and the benefit falls through there too. Given that Churches are based on rigid foolishness that has a vengeful nasty god at the center of it, I think it is safe to say that religion is the poorest of all reasons to push for communities to form social bonds.

If anything, you can view the people with lack of faith as victims of religion, having their social community disrupted by nonsense and removing the ability for them to share in some of these benefits with their neighbors. If they join a Church they do not believe in (or because they belong to a religion with few other members in the region) they lose the benefit of the Church because of their increased stress and the negativity of the message to them. If they do not, they are denied the social connections and hated as a subversive monster. The evidence is there that social connections do help people. Allowing religion to divide people negatively impacts the health of a community.

An all-inclusive, non-judgemental form of community outreach would be best of all, offering the most positive message while bringing the most people together with the fewest reasons to kick them out or look down on other members of the community. Black churches showed the highest amount of benefit because their Churches are not just religious, but social and political capstones of their communities. Remove the religion that divides and terrifies people, replace it with something positive, and retain the social aspects of a Black church's community center function. Throw in some exercise and meditation, such as sport teams and nature walks and other things such an organization could provide, and you'd get a much better benefit overall, and that's using their numbers.

[Tahlan]

I'll presume, for the moment, that you are not a fundie and merely fucked up a bad joke.

Thank you. I will be extremely more cautious, and much more clear, the next time I make an attempt at humor. Lesson learned.

[Tahlan]

I've got as much proof as you do of your assertion; The article you cite is only a meta-article, ie- it is not a study of any kind, but rather, a journalist's attempt to summarize his understanding of other studies. That is no more credible than anything that anyone else has pointed out here. He doesn't even describe any of the methodology of the studies involved, which makes one wonder if he even read any of them beyond the abstract, nor did he give any indication of what level of peer review these studies had undergone.

I readily admit that the TIME article is a meta-article. I concede the point. Without reading all the underlying articles, which I did not do, there's no telling how accurate or even truthful the TIME article actually is.