Harvard Scientists Have Found That Pessimists - Like Lewis, Mark and PJ - Live Shorter Lives

  What a wonderful bit of data --  Harvard scientists found that optimistic people live 11 to 15% longer. They have 50-70% higher odds of living to 85 or beyond. I can already see the cynics debating this one, so let’s be clear: even when the researchers controlled for diet, exercise, smoking, and socioeconomic status, the optimists outlived the pessimists. 

No such study was ever conducted.

   So sayeth the Sink's most vocal - and biggest lying - pessimist. -- Research from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston University, and the VA Boston Healthcare System shows that highly optimistic people live, on average, 11 to 15% longer than those with pessimistic outlooks. This longitudinal, large-scale study, which followed over 70,000 participants, also found that optimists have a 50-70% greater chance of living to age 85 or older. -- Found on Google

Nope. And I'm not even going to bother telling you how I know this wasn't any kind of real study.

 Other sources -- https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/06/optimism-lengthens-life-study-finds/  -- https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/happiness-leads-longer-healthier-lives-study/  -- https://www.instagram.com/p/DPyzn85DKa3/  -- https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-new-science-of-optimism-and-longevity/ --- 

JAGS is apparently a peer reviewed journal, which lends credibility.  Quite a large study over 26 years.  I'd love to read it, how they defined and measured "optimism".  Almost seems intuitive with lower health risks, cardiovascular (i.e. hypertension etc) , gastroenterology (i.e. peptic ulcer), psychiatry (i.e. depression).

I'm interested to learn Kevin's reason for his position that the study never took place.

Candy

First of all, Candy, in a part-time job I've had for fifteen years, I've read and reviewed hundreds of peer-reviewed studies published in journals. Tellingly, David's "source" didn't reference the so-called study, though all such works are accessible to the public. Academic studies in journals always have a 300-500 word summary/synopsis, which one can easily find.

But just to be sure, I checked Google Scholar, using multiple combinations of keywords. No such study appeared.

But that aside, here's the reason why the study as described would either never have taken place or had its conclusions instantly discredited.

The stated method of the study was conventional: to see if there was a correlation between one variable, optimism/pessimism, and another, lifespan. The idea is to assign a number to the correlation: 1.0 is certainty, while 0.0 is no correlation at all. For instance, smoking and lung cancer have a correlation of about 0.5.

For these measurements to be meaningful, each variable MUST be numerically quantifiable--and such scales have to be agreed upon by peers/the scientific community beforehand. Here's where the "study" falls on its ass. THERE IS NO WAY TO NUMERICALLY MEASURE SOMEONE'S OPTIMISM OR PESSIMISM. What the "study" did was to ask the SUBJECTS, via a short questionnaire. I think you can see why asking people about their emotional makeup might produce biased answers! "Rate yourself on a scale of 1 to 10" produces...GIGO.

And now we have the "confounding variable" problem. Did those participants who lived a long time do so because they were optimists---or were they optimists because they had lived so long? In other words, the circumstances that enable a person to have a long life--reasonably good health, support from friends and family, good personal circumstances (housing, wealth, etc )--do they naturally instill a sense of optimism? Does A cause B, or does B cause A?

Now, I hasten to add that there may indeed be such a correlation as the "study" may have claimed. I'm simply saying that the normal rigorous scientific methods were not and could not have been applied. The absence of any such study from peer-reviewed academic journals is no doubt due to that lack.

Oh, and BTW, even a published study might be fatally flawed. That's why broad and let's face it, grandiose conclusions such as the one given aren't accepted as factual until others do follow-up studies and reach the same conclusion(s). I haven't found any such studies.

And the final nail in the coffin: somebody kept track of the dispositions and fates of SEVENTY THOUSAND PEOPLE OVER THE COURSE OF TWENTY- SIX YEARS??? They and what army? Using what funding?

That's why I believe this whole thing is bogus. Again, the conclusion may actually be correct. But the method by which it was reached could not have been.

Like you, if the study was in fact published in an academic peer-reviewed journal AND not later discredited, I'd love to read it.

I'm happy to provide you with an answer to your question. Of course, David didn't deserve such an answer.

  These websites beg to differ from your long winded lie you post here ---  Other sources -- https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/06/optimism-lengthens-life-study-finds/ -- https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/happiness-leads-longer-healthier-lives-study/ -- https://www.instagram.com/p/DPyzn85DKa3/ -- https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-new-science-of-optimism-and-longevity/ ---

If the study was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, that would have validated its existence, at least (not necessarily its accuracy). Post a link to that.

Kevin, your points are well taken regarding research papers and journals.  I'm sure you well know about the disasterous one published years ago in The Lancet, the journal of of all journals of credible studies, associating the MMR vaccine with autism?  The Lancet!!!  I think it took them years to conclude that the study was bogus and print a full retraction.  Sample size something like 8 children with developmental delays, selectively (vs randomly) selected by the author, surely a research violation?  Parents desperate for a reason their kids were regressing.  The guy ultimately lost his MD license for unethical practice, and The Lancet suffered major embarrassment.

I'm not equating David's cited optimism paper with that one.  What was the hypothesis exactly?

As you well know, some journals/research studies have more rigorous requirements than others.  I'm vaguely familiar with soft (my word) studies/papers that make it into the public domain, not necessarily bogus, and there may be a lot of good work and useful information from them for others to expand on.   And there is the "publish or perish" pressure some professionals have existed under in their careers.  Having one's name among authors of even a 'soft' study that gets published could enhance a resume for academic purposes.

Were David to really care about my opinion, I would say it was very fine to post about the Harvard study, except to include the insulting "-Like Lewis, Mark and PJ-"  which spoiled any suggestion of intent to inform.

But since there are no rules about posting respectfully, it is his right to do so. 

I appreciate your own restraint in your responses in this thread, Kevin.  Much more polished.

Candy