The rigour you bring to this critique matters beyond the specific study, because the broader conversation about ageing — including the case against ageism in recruitment and organisational life — is only as strong as the quality of the evidence it rests on, and a field that overstates causality or misrepresents sources hands ammunition to those who prefer comfortable dismissal over genuine engagement. The distinction between correlation and causation is not a technicality here; it is the difference between a call to action grounded in science and one that can be picked apart. What do you think would need to change in how ageing research is communicated to the public for this kind of critical scrutiny to become the norm rather than the exception?
Charles, thanks for your comment on this article and the larger question you ask. It's a good one. I'm not sure I have a great answer, other than restating my call for honest-to-goodness transparency, presented in plain English (or whatever language you prefer). The Neurology paper I referred to in this post shows the way: say what you don't know as clearly as what you may know.
The other thing that would need to change is what I call longevity literacy: just like consumers of news need to understand the sources of what they read, see and hear, so too do consumers of aging science need to understand how transparent the research is, and what is being left intentionally unsaid. AI seems to be a tool that could be useful in that regard. What do you think?
BMI is t just by the Hy Ynh by http://y.de ax. for the ez. n by. c Dee Dee is so Protect your bones, protect your lean mass when on GLP-1.fun! ukon unuu
Paul, studies like this remind me very much of what happened to the field of economics when it was decided almost universally that only things that can be proved mathematically are to be taken seriously. It essentially took what I will casually call common sense out of the equation. It took the otherwise brilliant philosophies of the Austrian Economist’s out of the main stream for a considerable time because the math was and is hard to come by.
If I understand what this study is trying to say (and I’m not sure I do), I think it makes the modest suggestion that someone’s general beliefs about aging impact the measurables of their aging, with aging simply being defined as a process of loss of prior physical or cognitive capabilities. The quality of the study aside (and it seems like pretty weak self-reported data), hasn’t the undeniable placebo response to water pills already settled this?
In general, Winnie the pooh, maybe Kanga and Roo, Tigger, and perhaps Piglet will have generally better health outcomes than the fatalist Eeyore, or cortisol anxious Rabbit because they can see silver linings.
Belief that something is possible, real belief not just “that would be nice if it were so” belief, will impact someone to their core and change their behaviors in immeasurable ways.
My modest thought on this is that Sooner or later, you will get what you really expect you are going to get because on a very deep level, that expectation affects everything about how you behave, consciously and unconsciously.
Sidebar: of course, the ever irresponsible media will cherry pick items and declare causality when the research may only suggest that it bears further scrutiny. Sadly, the modern mainstream media appears to have an agenda that has very little to do with pursuing the truth. It is tragic, and has been going on so very much longer than most people, myself included, realized. Thank you for trying to tease out some useful information from this study Paul.
Matt, thanks for your thoughts on this. If I properly infer the point of your first paragraph, I wasn't as interested in pointing out shortcuts in the study's methodologies as much as what it chose to report and not report, and what it chose to acknowledge and not acknowledge. Transparency is the thesis here.
Your second point is well taken. It seems rather obvious that in life you get some fraction of what you envision you should get from it, whether positive or negative. And it helps to think positively. As you know, careers are made in very narrow slices of science, and rightly so, and this may be an area of science where everything that can be said has been said. I don't know.
Good reporting! I feel like, as you say, it makes some intuitive sense that positive beliefs about aging could influence one’s aging — ala the placebo effect. But it falls short of a causal relationship, and leaving out considerations of income/socioeconomic status seems like a glaring hole. Social determinants of health are real. And it’s hard to feel optimistic about aging when you can’t afford good insurance, or any insurance, and you’ve watched older family members decline in a similar situation.
Ana, completely agree with your point about income and the ability to, in a sense, afford to feel positive about aging. If you're working the night shift and taking care of a couple grandkids and trying to make ends meet every month, it would seem to be a lot harder to be able to stay positive generally.
The side-by-side with the Neurology paper is what makes this land. Same kind of observational data, completely different tone about what it can and can't say. That kind of transparency reads as more trustworthy, not less.
David, thanks for your comment. I'm glad I was able to make the point clearly. Maybe I should've moved that section up higher in the peace. I appreciate you pointing it out, because I completely agree: transparency is what really matters in science (and in life, generally as well).
Agreed on transparency, in science and otherwise. It usually costs nothing to name what a piece of work can't say, and it earns a lot back in trust. Good exchange.
The rigour you bring to this critique matters beyond the specific study, because the broader conversation about ageing — including the case against ageism in recruitment and organisational life — is only as strong as the quality of the evidence it rests on, and a field that overstates causality or misrepresents sources hands ammunition to those who prefer comfortable dismissal over genuine engagement. The distinction between correlation and causation is not a technicality here; it is the difference between a call to action grounded in science and one that can be picked apart. What do you think would need to change in how ageing research is communicated to the public for this kind of critical scrutiny to become the norm rather than the exception?
Charles, thanks for your comment on this article and the larger question you ask. It's a good one. I'm not sure I have a great answer, other than restating my call for honest-to-goodness transparency, presented in plain English (or whatever language you prefer). The Neurology paper I referred to in this post shows the way: say what you don't know as clearly as what you may know.
The other thing that would need to change is what I call longevity literacy: just like consumers of news need to understand the sources of what they read, see and hear, so too do consumers of aging science need to understand how transparent the research is, and what is being left intentionally unsaid. AI seems to be a tool that could be useful in that regard. What do you think?
BMI is t just by the Hy Ynh by http://y.de ax. for the ez. n by. c Dee Dee is so Protect your bones, protect your lean mass when on GLP-1.fun! ukon unuu
Paul, studies like this remind me very much of what happened to the field of economics when it was decided almost universally that only things that can be proved mathematically are to be taken seriously. It essentially took what I will casually call common sense out of the equation. It took the otherwise brilliant philosophies of the Austrian Economist’s out of the main stream for a considerable time because the math was and is hard to come by.
If I understand what this study is trying to say (and I’m not sure I do), I think it makes the modest suggestion that someone’s general beliefs about aging impact the measurables of their aging, with aging simply being defined as a process of loss of prior physical or cognitive capabilities. The quality of the study aside (and it seems like pretty weak self-reported data), hasn’t the undeniable placebo response to water pills already settled this?
In general, Winnie the pooh, maybe Kanga and Roo, Tigger, and perhaps Piglet will have generally better health outcomes than the fatalist Eeyore, or cortisol anxious Rabbit because they can see silver linings.
Belief that something is possible, real belief not just “that would be nice if it were so” belief, will impact someone to their core and change their behaviors in immeasurable ways.
My modest thought on this is that Sooner or later, you will get what you really expect you are going to get because on a very deep level, that expectation affects everything about how you behave, consciously and unconsciously.
Sidebar: of course, the ever irresponsible media will cherry pick items and declare causality when the research may only suggest that it bears further scrutiny. Sadly, the modern mainstream media appears to have an agenda that has very little to do with pursuing the truth. It is tragic, and has been going on so very much longer than most people, myself included, realized. Thank you for trying to tease out some useful information from this study Paul.
Matt, thanks for your thoughts on this. If I properly infer the point of your first paragraph, I wasn't as interested in pointing out shortcuts in the study's methodologies as much as what it chose to report and not report, and what it chose to acknowledge and not acknowledge. Transparency is the thesis here.
Your second point is well taken. It seems rather obvious that in life you get some fraction of what you envision you should get from it, whether positive or negative. And it helps to think positively. As you know, careers are made in very narrow slices of science, and rightly so, and this may be an area of science where everything that can be said has been said. I don't know.
Thanks for your close reading.
Good reporting! I feel like, as you say, it makes some intuitive sense that positive beliefs about aging could influence one’s aging — ala the placebo effect. But it falls short of a causal relationship, and leaving out considerations of income/socioeconomic status seems like a glaring hole. Social determinants of health are real. And it’s hard to feel optimistic about aging when you can’t afford good insurance, or any insurance, and you’ve watched older family members decline in a similar situation.
Ana, completely agree with your point about income and the ability to, in a sense, afford to feel positive about aging. If you're working the night shift and taking care of a couple grandkids and trying to make ends meet every month, it would seem to be a lot harder to be able to stay positive generally.
The side-by-side with the Neurology paper is what makes this land. Same kind of observational data, completely different tone about what it can and can't say. That kind of transparency reads as more trustworthy, not less.
David, thanks for your comment. I'm glad I was able to make the point clearly. Maybe I should've moved that section up higher in the peace. I appreciate you pointing it out, because I completely agree: transparency is what really matters in science (and in life, generally as well).
Agreed on transparency, in science and otherwise. It usually costs nothing to name what a piece of work can't say, and it earns a lot back in trust. Good exchange.