It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Everyone eventually dies, regardless of how many people they hang out with.
So it's really an exercise in futility.
People who have no social life are fifty per cent more likely to die early than those who are well connected, a study has shown.
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
People who have no social life are fifty per cent more likely to die early than those who are well connected, a study has shown.
To rephrase:
People who have no social life are fifty per cent more likely to live longer than those who are well connected...
Originally posted by 547000
Isn't that a blessing. If you think life sucks and you die quicker, isn't that a good thing? And the people who enjoy life live longer.
Originally posted by Ancient Champion
I hate "studies" like this one. They think that they can tell you how long you will/can live, but the fact is no one can predict death. You can be the healthest person in the country but you can still die in a car wreck at age 21.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Big Raging Loner
People who have no social life are fifty per cent more likely to die early than those who are well connected, a study has shown.
To rephrase:
People who have no social life are fifty per cent more likely to live longer than those who are well connected...
No, that's not how statistics works :-)
...There is nothing to say that lonely people will die before 70, and the oldest person in the world could be one who is alone, but statistically (numerical analysis of the aggregate, not individuals,) they are much more likely to not live to that average expected age of death.
Originally posted by soficrow
In my experience, statistics work the way they're designed to work.
Researchers analysed data from 148 studies over three decades and involving more than 300,000 people.
And my questions stand - What's with this push to blame loneliness for shorter lifespans? Why promote social interaction? Is it the attendant conformity that's desirable? ...What?
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by soficrow
In my experience, statistics work the way they're designed to work.
Depends on the honesty of the person doing the study, as I said. But, barring a reason to assume bias
(the study) was done under the auspices of grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Aging, and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, which doesn't sound too suspicious.
As for the data:
Researchers analysed data from 148 studies over three decades and involving more than 300,000 people.
Which looks like a reasonably large sample size.
...why does there have to be some nefarious purpose to this sort of thing?
... fitness gurus will outlive chain smokers, in the aggregate, by many, many years, but that's not as interesting as the goofballs who buck the trend.
Originally posted by soficrow
Originally posted by adjensen
(the study) was done under the auspices of grants from the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Aging, and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, which doesn't sound too suspicious.
LOTS of bias there - notably a commitment to "blame the victims," rather than admit to infectious components with a broad range of environmental triggers for pandemic chronic disease - by far the most frequent cause-of-death in our 'new age.'
Originally posted by adjensen
Don't get me wrong -- I don't entirely disagree with your concern. But it's fallacy to presume that this study says anything other than "social beings do better when they are around other social beings", which makes the author something of a Captain Obvious, if you ask me. I can't imagine the opposite conclusion being drawn.