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

Two funny points to note with this thread

1) it's authored by someone who makes 15 negative posts on this board daily.

2) the author cites the same "woke, liberal, elitist" university that he's tried to discredit on this board 100 times before.

 

 

Originally posted by: O2bnVegas

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

 

 


Yes, Candy, crappy studies do make it into the public domain all the time, with their erroneous or unfounded conclusions touted as factual, especially if they're interesting and/or appealing. What usually happens is that such studies attract attention and spark multiple follow-up studies. Incorrect or unsupported conclusions don't survive this process. That what I love about academia: it's self-correcting.

 

Longitudinal studies are inherently weak for many reasons, especially "attrition bias." Subjects drop out, so your final sample is skewed toward those who stuck with the study until its completion. As per my quality of life remark, someone willing to be tracked for decades will have a particular mindset that may not be representative of the overall population--thus, the sample becomes biased as time goes on.

 

Psychological researchers use longitudinal studies quite a lot, but ethics concerns crop up more and more these days. The only worthwhile longitudinal psychological study would be one with a small number of participants who are evaluated by trained psychologists. But many consider that too intrusive. Thus the send out questionnaires to a whole bunch of people method.

 

The stated hypothesis for this study, given its method, must have been something like "There is a significant correlation between optimism/pessimism and lifespan." Now, many laymen would say something like, "Well, of course optimistic people live longer," which in and of itself endangers the validity of the study. Researchers are supposed to be neutral about their hypothesis, but they often are themselves biased, so they choose methodology that is biased or subject to bias.

 

Hell, I would challenge the presumed conclusion based on quite a few thoughts. Do optimistic soldiers live longer? Firefighters? Cops? Would you rather be operated on by an optimistic or a pessimistic doctor? Who had a greater covid survival rate, those pessimists who wore masks and avoided others, or those optimists who said, "I won't catch it"? Do pessimistic drivers who wear seat belts and observe speed limits live longer than optimistic drivers who smoke a doob while getting a handjob from their girlfriends (suggests a fascinating potential study)? 

 

As you, I, and PJ, and everyone else who reads this thread know, David didn't care about this topic at all and merely wanted to pitch insults. Nonetheless, it sparked an interesting discussion, and it's enjoyable talking to you about it. I like it that we've subverted David's intent and turned his petty little insult thread into an adult discussion. 

 

Oh, and General Lee and everyone in the Army of Northern Virginia was an optimist at Gettysburg. Only General Longstreet said that Pickett's Charge would fail and be a bloodbath. Thousands died in half an hour. Yet, there are fifty times as many Lee statues as Longstreet statues in the South.

 

Time for me to have an optimistic omelet. Let me know if you want the recipe 😀

Originally posted by: PJ Stroh

Two funny points to note with this thread

1) it's authored by someone who makes 15 negative posts on this board daily.

2) the author cites the same "woke, liberal, elitist" university that he's tried to discredit on this board 100 times before.

 

 


Yeah, I noticed that, too, and was laughing at him for it. It also made me think the study was either nonexistent or had been discredited. Would he have chosen Harvard as a source if the stated conclusion had been reached by literally ANYBODY else?? And of course, not a scientific journal...a student newspaper.

 

Nonetheless, this thread has been fun. I had a serious and enjoyable discussion with Candy and we all got to mock David. Life doesn't get much better than that 😄😄😄😄😄

Please know that I strived to not "mock" anybody.  

 

Candy


Originally posted by: O2bnVegas

Please know that I strived to not "mock" anybody.  

 

Candy


Yes. That's fine. But he mocked himself with his thread subject, thread title, and thread purpose. I too swerved away from pointing out what a stupid jerkass he is and instead decided to treat his topic with a seriousness it didn't deserve. That might be the best way to, well, neuter him...is that better?

 

I have observed, though, that despite your always treating him with the utmost civility, he's thrown shit at you numerous times, like a chimpanzee at the zoo. He doesn't deserve your respect.

 

And to return to his topic for a moment: David sure as hell ain't no optimist!!! 😛😛😛

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Yes. That's fine. But he mocked himself with his thread subject, thread title, and thread purpose. I too swerved away from pointing out what a stupid jerkass he is and instead decided to treat his topic with a seriousness it didn't deserve. That might be the best way to, well, neuter him...is that better?

 

I have observed, though, that despite your always treating him with the utmost civility, he's thrown shit at you numerous times, like a chimpanzee at the zoo. He doesn't deserve your respect.

 

And to return to his topic for a moment: David sure as hell ain't no optimist!!! 😛😛😛


   Two definitions for you; (1) Optimist (which I am) -hopeful and confident about the future, -  (2) Pessimist ( which Lewis is) - a person who thinks that bad things are more likely to happen or who emphasizes the bad part of a situation

Originally posted by: David Miller

   Two definitions for you; (1) Optimist (which I am) -hopeful and confident about the future, -  (2) Pessimist ( which Lewis is) - a person who thinks that bad things are more likely to happen or who emphasizes the bad part of a situation


An optimist would not start fifteen negative threads every day.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now