X-Message-Number: 20449 From: "Lee Corbin" <> Subject: Re: [Cryonics_Institute] Why this group may help both ways! Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 10:42:48 -0800 John De Rivaz writes > This news story suggests why this group could help in two ways -- those > cryonicists who are generous with their time in helping other cryonicists > members can benefit too! > > Of course the study may be fatally flawed. If the group who are supposedly > generous are mainly composed of the sort of person who is highly productive, > a gift of a small amount of time may be at less personal expense than from > someone who is time pressured because he is not really very productive. Perhaps that's one flaw, but I am always curious about studies like this in general. > Generous oldsters live longer > United Press International > > Older Americans who are generous with their time and help can reduce their > risk of dying prematurely by 60 percent, a new study released Wednesday > suggests. > > The study, to be published in a future issue of the journal Psychology > Science, found people who reported providing no help to others were more > than twice as likely to die sooner than people who gave of themselves. Doesn't any ordinary skeptic immediately wonder, as John does above, just what is cause and what is effect? One very obvious explanation could be that people who didn't provide help to others failed to do so because they just didn't feel like it, i.e., they had less energy or were sick, or were simply less healthy. Then, duh, it wouldn't be any big surprise that they didn't live as long. > Psychologist Stephanie Brown, the study's author, said previous studies have > credited receiving support from another individual with prolonging life. The > new research contradicts that finding, Brown said. It is the giving, not the > receiving, that increases longevity. To wax absurd for a moment, will some multi-million dollar study next reveal that people who decide to go to hospitals are more than twice as likely to die as people who do not decide to seek medical help? Now professional psychologists such as Stephanie Brown can hardly be considered stupid or naive, so why isn't there a statement attending such findings that such effects have been controlled for? I *must* assume that such obvious effects have been controlled for since this is the 21st century and not the 16th century. I must assume that in fact a double-blind study was conducted, mustn't I? Which is the lesser miracle, that they don't control for obvious effects like this, or that they don't mention that they've controlled for effects like this? Am I or am I not correct in assuming that they've controlled for effects such as this? Lee Corbin Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20449