Про независимость и психосоматику
Dec. 27th, 2015 07:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
healthy_back_18Что уже было http://healthy-back.livejournal.com/343909.html
http://www.dni.ru/culture/2016/4/11/333727.html
Ученые: брак повышает шансы победить рак
Ученые из калифорнийского университета Сан-Диего (США) провели исследование, в ходе которого выяснили, что семейных союз повышает шансы победить рак. Авторы научной работы проанализировали данные из регистра онкологических заболеваний штата Калифорния о болезни почти 800 000 человек, которым поставили диагноз рак с высокой вероятностью летального исхода. Выяснилось, что счастливые семейные люди более стойко переносили заболевание.
Проанализировав больных в период с 2000 по 2009 гг, специалисты выделили несколько факторов: социально-экономический статус, наличие медицинской страховки, а также семейное положение. Оказалось, что супружеская жизнь положительно влияет на ход болезни, как у мужчин, так и у женщин. Так, риск смерти холостяков оказался на 24% выше, чем у женатых мужчин. В то же самое время, смертность одиноких женщин была на 17% выше, чем у состоящих в браке.
http://www.ted.com/speakers/robert_waldinger
...The clearest message that we get from this 75-year study is this: Good relationships keep us happier and healthier. Period. The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80.
Our most happily partnered men and women reported, in their 80s, that on the days when they had more physical pain, their mood stayed just as happy. But the people who were in unhappy relationships, on the days when they reported more physical pain, it was magnified by more emotional pain.
It turns out that being in a securely attached relationship to another person in your 80s is protective, that the people who are in relationships where they really feel they can count on the other person in times of need, those people's memories stay sharper longer.
В лекции говорится о гарвардском исследвании, которое проводилось в течении 75 лет и продолжается до сих пор. Цель исследования - понять, что делает людей счастливыми и здоровыми. Для исследования отобрали 724 мужчин, за жизнью которых внимательно следили год за годом с помощью опросников, интервью, визитов к ним домой, наблюдений за их поведением в быту, а также с помощью анализов и изучения их медицинских карт. Половина участников была выпускниками Гарварда, половина - из самых бедных и неблагополучных семей. Из изначальных участников в живых сейчас осталось 24 человека, и исследователи теперь включили в наблюдения и их детей (больше 2000).
В лекции также упоминаются результаты недавнего опроса среди миллениалсов (поколение конца 90х - начала 00х) об их жизненных целях, где 80 процентов ответили, что хотели бы разбогатеть, и 50 добавили, что еще хотели бы и прославиться. И это в целом совпадает с постоянными посылами, которые мы получаем: главное в жизни - это деньги, слава и достижения, и именно в это нужно инвестировать свои силы, чтобы быть счастливым и здоровым.
Однако, результаты гарвардского исследования показали, что есть нечто важнее материального достатка и общественного признаний. Самую главную роль в поддержании хорошего здоровья и обретения счастья играют отношения - семья, друзья и прочие социальные связи. Причем, не само их наличие, а их качество - отношения должны быть близкими, теплыми и быть, говоря языком Боулби, отношениями с безопасной привязанностью. Т.е. такими, где есть знание и ощущиние, что вы можете положиться на своего парнера, близких и друзей.
У людей состоящих в отношениях с безопасной привязанностью здоровье и память сохраняются в хорошем состоянии до старости. А у тех, кто живет в состоянии конфликта, кто чувствует себя одиноким и несчастен в отношениях, память с возрастом ухудшается. Даже физическая боль переносится по-разному: у несчастных и одиноких людей физическая боль ощущается в разы сильнее.
Для здоровья гораздо разрушительнее находиться в плохих отношениях, чем пережить стресс от развода - так говорят исследователи.
https://www.facebook.com/pavlovairen?fref=nf
Меня в жизни довольно часто кидали. И в прямом уголовном смысле, и в смысле переносном (от чего было ничуть не легче).
Меня предупреждали: не садись играть в карты в поезде, в гостинице, на пляже.
Но я была самоуверенна, садилась, и получала в полный рост, пока, наконец, не усвоила это правило. Единственным положительным результатом этого стало то, что я как-то моментально научилась вычислять карточных кидал.
Меня кидали в валютных обменниках. Ну, вот когда в результате кризиса остаешься почти без гроша, и вопрос нескольких лишних копеек за доллар приобретает суровую актуальность. В результате лишалась и этих последних денег.
Меня кидали по работе. То есть, когда работаешь с человеком, знакомым не первый день, под честное слово, а когда работа сделана, тебе говорят, с милой улыбкой: извини, мать, но денег нет. И не будет.
Однако, куда более обидное кидалово, это когда человек, к которому ты относишься, как к человеку честному (ну, он не давал оснований относиться к нему иначе), лжет, глядя тебе в глаза. Вот лжет - и не краснеет. А ты, не зная, что он лжет, ему веришь (ну, он же не давал оснований ему не верить).
А потом оказывается, что всё им сказанное - вранье. И ты спрашиваешь его: как же так? А он смотрит тебе в глаза, и говорит: не было этого. Тебе это приснилось.
Но и это не самое обидное (хотя, казалось бы, куда уже).
Самое обидное, когда человек смотрит тебе в глаза и говорит: черное - это белое. А ты не можешь себе представить, что вот так можно, и потому талдычишь, как дурак: да нет же, посмотри, белое - вот такое (и тычешь ему листок бумаги, или там - тряпочку беленькую), а это - черное. Но он, глядя на тебя с улыбкой, стоит на своем (они все почему-то всегда улыбаются в этот момент!). И ты понимаешь, что он не хуже тебя знает, где черное, где белое.
И вот это совершенно детское чувство бессилия перед ложью - куда сильнее всех остальных обид...
http://patch.com/ By PAIGE AUSTIN
Study: Smart Phone Distracted Parenting May Make Kids Reckless
Scientists found that fragmented caretaking leads to abnormal brains in rats, and distracted parents may have a similar affect on children.
A study on “fragmented” caretaking of rodents has given UC Irvine researchers a window into the effect that parents’ usage of devices such as smart phones can have on babies, according to a study published this week.
A study of rats subjected to chaotic and disruptive caretaking showed issues with brain development that the UCI scientists have extrapolated to the effects of smart-phone use, Dr. Tallie Z. Baram said.
“We didn’t set out to study cell phones,” Baram said, but the conclusions of the study could be applied to how the devices can make caretakers absent from much-needed nurturing of infants.
“We set out to find out what are the important signals from mother or father that the baby’s brain needs to be at its best when he grows up, which is what every parent wants,” Baram told City News Service.
Baram and her team at the Conte Center on Brain Programming in Adolescent Vulnerabilities studied adolescent rats subjected to predictable and unpredictable maternal care.
The adolescent rats reared in unpredictable environments showed issues with the pleasure center of their brains, Baram said.
“We gave them the choice between water and sugar water and these guys couldn’t care,” Baram said of the rodents subjected to a chaotic upbringing. “We let them play with slightly smaller mates and these guys interacted with them, but didn’t do all the fun stuff. This is how we know the pleasure system is messed up.”
The disjointed environment, which included limiting bedding and nesting materials in cages for a week, affected the development of the brain’s dopamine- receptor system, Baram said. Infants need predictability to help that part of the brain develop normally.
“There’s a critical period when these connections in brain cells have to happen,” Baram said.
An improperly developed pleasure center system could lead adolescents to engage in risky behavior, Baram said.
“If you can’t get nice pleasure from riding a motorbike at 40 miles per hour, then you might try it at 140 miles per hour,” Baram said. “So it’s associated with risk-taking behavior.”
The scientists found that it leads to a condition called “anhedonia,” which is difficulty in feeling happy and can lead to depression.
“In analogy, we speculate that patterns of maternal-derived sensory input, specifically unpredictable and fragmented patterns, might influence the maturation of emotional systems within the developing brain,” the study says. “While the mechanisms for this speculated process require further study, its implications are profound: identifying optimal nurturing environments for emotional outcome may help reduce the high and increasing prevalence of emotional problems during adolescence.”
Baram’s team is about a year and a half into studying the influences on fragmented caretaking for humans. There is data on some youths taken over the past decade that the team is building on.
The study was published in Translational Psychiatry.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/jamie-varon/2014/12/this-is-how-we-date-now/
This Is How We Date Now
Jamie Varon
We don’t commit now. We don’t see the point. They’ve always said there are so many fish in the sea, but never before has that sea of fish been right at our fingertips on OkCupid, Tinder, Grindr, Dattch, take your pick. We can order up a human being in the same way we can order up pad thai on Seamless. We think intimacy lies in a perfectly-executed string of emoji. We think effort is a “good morning” text. We say romance is dead, because maybe it is, but maybe we just need to reinvent it. Maybe romance in our modern age is putting the phone down long enough to look in each other’s eyes at dinner. Maybe romance is deleting Tinder off your phone after an incredible first date with someone. Maybe romance is still there, we just don’t know what it looks like now.
When we choose—if we commit—we are still one eye wandering at the options. We want the beautiful cut of filet mignon, but we’re too busy eyeing the mediocre buffet, because choice. Because choice. Our choices are killing us. We think choice means something. We think opportunity is good. We think the more chances we have, the better. But, it makes everything watered-down. Never mind actually feeling satisfied, we don’t even understand what satisfaction looks like, sounds like, feels like. We’re one foot out the door, because outside that door is more, more, more. We don’t see who’s right in front of our eyes asking to be loved, because no one is asking to be loved. We long for something that we still want to believe exists. Yet, we are looking for the next thrill, the next jolt of excitement, the next instant gratification.
We soothe ourselves and distract ourselves and, if we can’t even face the demons inside our own brain, how can we be expected to stick something out, to love someone even when it’s not easy to love them? We bail. We leave. We see a limitless world in a way that no generation before us has seen. We can open up a new tab, look at pictures of Portugal, pull out a Visa, and book a plane ticket. We don’t do this, but we can. The point is that we know we can, even if we don’t have the resources to do so. There are always other tantalizing options. Open up Instagram and see the lives of others, the life we could have. See the places we’re not traveling to. See the lives we’re not living. See the people we’re not dating. We bombard ourselves with stimuli, input, input, input, and we wonder why we’re miserable. We wonder why we’re dissatisfied. We wonder why nothing lasts and everything feels a little hopeless. Because, we have no idea how to see our lives for what they are, instead of what they aren’t.
And, even if we find it. Say we find that person we love who loves us. Commitment. Intimacy. “I love you.” We do it. We find it. Then, quickly, we live it for others. We tell people we’re in a relationship on Facebook. We throw our pictures up on Instagram. We become a “we.” We make it seem shiny and perfect because what we choose to share is the highlight reel. We don’t share the 3am fights, the reddened eyes, the tear-stained bedsheets. We don’t write status updates about how their love for us shines a light on where we don’t love ourselves. We don’t tweet 140 characters of sadness when we’re having the kinds of conversations that can make or break the future of our love. This is not what we share. Shiny picture. Happy couple. Love is perfect.
Then, we see these other happy, shiny couples and we compare. We are The Emoji Generation. Choice Culture. The Comparison Generation. Measuring up. Good enough. The best. Never before have we had such an incredible cornucopia of markers for what it looks like to live the Best Life Possible. We input, input, input and soon find ourselves in despair. We’ll never be good enough, because what we’re trying to measure up to just does not fucking exist. These lives do not exist. These relationships do not exist. Yet, we can’t believe it. We see it with our own eyes. And, we want it. And, we will make ourselves miserable until we get it.
So, we break up. We break up because we’re not good enough, our lives aren’t good enough, our relationship isn’t good enough. We swipe, swipe, swipe, just a bit more on Tinder. We order someone up to our door just like a pizza. And, the cycle starts again. Emoji. “Good morning” text. Intimacy. Put down the phone. Couple selfie. Shiny, happy couple. Compare. Compare. Compare. The inevitable creeping in of latent, subtle dissatisfaction. The fights. “Something is wrong, but I don’t know what it is.” “This isn’t working.” “I need something more.” And, we break up. Another love lost. Another graveyard of shiny, happy couple selfies.
On to the next. Searching for the elusive more. The next fix. The next gratification. The next quick hit. Living our lives in 140 characters, 5 second snaps, frozen filtered images, four minute movies, attention here, attention there. More as an illusion. We worry about settling, all the while making ourselves suffer thinking that anything less than the shiny, happy filtered life we’ve been accustomed to is settling. What is settling? We don’t know, but we fucking don’t want it. If it’s not perfect, it’s settling. If it’s not glittery filtered love, settling. If it’s not Pinterest-worthy, settling.
We realize that this more we want is a lie. We want phone calls. We want to see a face we love absent of the blue dim of a phone screen. We want slowness. We want simplicity. We want a life that does not need the validation of likes, favorites, comments, upvotes. We may not know yet that we want this, but we do. We want connection, true connection. We want a love that builds, not a love that gets discarded for the next hit. We want to come home to people. We want to lay down our heads at the end of our lives and know we lived well, we lived the fuck out of our lives. This is what we want even if we don’t know it yet.
Yet, this is not how we date now. This is not how we love now.
https://medium.com/@amzin/%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D1%8F-%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81-%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2-%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC-2bbb3ab273d4#.co7m32tcq
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=137534&org=NSF&from=news
February 3, 2016
Loneliness is as close to universal as experiences come. Almost everyone has felt isolated, even rejected.
But the power of loneliness -- its potential for causing depression and other serious health problems as well as its surprising role in keeping humans safe from harm -- may be more profound than researchers had previously presumed, says neuroscience researcher John Cacioppo of the University of Chicago.
Cacioppo has spent nearly three decades exploring the social nature of the human brain, working to find the mechanisms behind traits such as loneliness, empathy, synchrony and emotional contagion. Through his research, funded by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, and the National Institute on Aging, he's helped turn loneliness from a curious afterthought in neuroscience to a serious area for research and explanation.
He and his collaborators have also incorporated new technology at each stage of their research, combining methods ranging from behavior studies to endocrinological testing, electrical and functional neuroimaging, and genetics. They're using those tools to identify the neural, hormonal, cellular and genetic mechanisms underlying social structures.
Using what they've learned, Cacioppo's team is evaluating therapies for loneliness, finding the most effective treatments and working to improve them. The researchers' collaborators include the U.S. Army, which turned to Cacioppo for help with studies that could be incorporated into training to help protect soldiers from isolation and related social problems.
During a visit to NSF, Cacioppo took some time to talk about loneliness -- what it is, where it comes from and how it affects people.
Q. How do you define loneliness, in terms of your work?
A. It's defined as perceived social isolation. People can feel like they're on the social perimeter for a lot of different reasons. If you're the last one chosen on a high school team, that can feel really unpleasant. It's also clearly an evaluation of your net worth to that group. If that's a valued group, it matters to you. If it's not a valued group, it's no big deal.
That has effects on not just emotions but cognition. Research at Rush University has shown that older adults are more likely to develop dementia if they feel chronic loneliness.
Q. So just the perception, not whether or not someone is actually isolated, can trigger a physiological reaction?
A. Much of what goes with loneliness -- behaviorally, physiologically -- is so deep that we've got it in our genes. It's just like if I were to provide a painful stimulus to your arm, you would withdraw and complain of being hurt. That's not something you learn. The pain withdrawal reflex is in place due to your genetic endowment. And that mechanism is in place because it protects your body from tissue damage.
Loneliness is a mechanism that's in place because we need, as a social species, to be able to identify when our connections with others for mutual aid and protection are being threatened or absent. If there's no connection, there could be mortal consequences. Those are threats to our survival and reproductive success.
Q. Does that make loneliness almost like a fever -- unpleasant, but there's a purpose to it?
A. That's exactly right. You would not want to eliminate the temporary feeling of loneliness. We've argued there's a benefit to that response to perceived isolation. But, like many individual variations of these kinds of states, there are pathologic extremes. I might be so sensitive to feeling connected or isolated as to be a complete wreck, or I can be so insensitive as to be a psychopath. That's just part of the normal distribution of individual differences that, for the most part, helps to protect our social body just as pain helps to protect our physical body.
Q. How does loneliness affect our social behavior and interactions?
A. When you feel lonely, you get more defensive. You focus more on self-preservation even though this is not done intentionally. Completely unbeknownst to you, your brain is focusing more on self-preservation than the preservation of those around you. This, in turn, can make you less pleasant to be around. Over time, this can increase the likelihood of negative social interactions. Thus, the focus on self-preservation can have short-term survival benefits but -- if not reversed -- can have long-term costs.
Q. It seems that loneliness can serve a useful purpose but -- almost like an immune system that starts attacking things that aren't actually threats -- it can go out of control.
A. That's exactly right. It's also very much like our stress system. Our stress system emerged in a different time of human history, and now we get stressed when we're in traffic. There's no saber-toothed tiger attacking; there's no person with a spear coming to get me. I'm sitting in a safe car, but there's still that level of stress and hostility that a traffic jam can engender. Our stress response contributed to survival across human history, but in contemporary society chronic stress also contributes to morbidity and mortality.
Stress has an adaptive value, even today, although not to the extent we're expressing it. But knowing that does not mean we can simply turn it off when we wish. It's the same thing with loneliness. We're trying to educate the public about this, to say that loneliness isn't something that only certain individuals have. It's something we all have, we can all fall into, and nearly all of us experience at some point in our lives.
Q. Does this type of research into loneliness tell us anything about humans as a species?
A. The perception of loneliness is exacerbated by the feeling that one doesn't have anyone on whom he or she can depend or who can depend on him or her. As children, we're dependent on adults. When we grow to be adults, we think we're supposed to become independent -- the king of the mountain. But in social mammals -- not just humans -- becoming an adult means being the individual upon whom others can depend. Our Western cultural notion of human nature does not capture our actual social nature particularly well.
Q. When you were starting your research into isolation decades ago, behavioral science and brain science weren't as closely linked as they are today, correct?
A. There were a number of people trying to put them together, but we didn't have the neuroimaging technologies we have today that have really transformed what we can ask. Today, someone can really look at the working, normal brain.
I was doing electroencephalography (EEG) 40 years ago, and we looked at very broad questions. I was doing it 20 years ago, and we looked at relatively sophisticated questions compared to 20 years prior, but not very sophisticated compared to today. I'm now asking questions about the whole brain in action rather than a single region in isolation. And genetics and genomics are also increasingly integrated into investigations of the social brain.
Q. The questions that you started asking at the very beginning of your research -- have they led you on a linear path to where you are today? Or has your research taken you in unexpected directions?
A. Yes to both. The question we started with wasn't about loneliness and continues to not be about loneliness. It's about who we are as a species. What, fundamentally, are our brains doing? What are the factors that influence brain function? Partly, we're showing that the brain is organized in part to deal with and to promote salutary connections to other people. The fundamental question was "what is the social nature of our brain?"
One of the things that surprised me was how important loneliness proved to be. It predicted morbidity. It predicted mortality. And that shocked me. When we experimentally manipulated loneliness, we found surprising changes in the "personalities" of people. There's a lot more power to the perception of being socially isolated than any of us had thought.
-- Rob Margetta, (703) 292-2663 rmargett@nsf.gov
Investigators
John Cacioppo
http://patch.com/california/livermore/new-research-spells-out-three-things-we-need-control-live-longer-healthier-lives
BY CLIFTON B. PARKER/Stanford News Serice
More Americans are living to their 80s, 90s and beyond, unthinkable just a century ago. Most say they expect to live to their 80s or longer, and want to live to 100 if they can do so in good health.
But the policies, products and personal behaviors to support such lives are not yet widespread, according to a new study by Stanford’s Center on Longevity.
The report, which was released today, is titled, The Sightlines Project: Seeing Our Way to Living Long, Living Well in 21st Century America.
The research focuses on trends in three key areas scientifically associated with longevity – health, financial security and social connections. The benchmark analysis is based on data from eight multi-year studies that include more than 1.2 million Americans.
“The Sightlines Project shows a way to a better future for Americans as they live longer than ever in history,” said Stanford President John L. Hennessy. “It provides a data-driven analysis for researchers, industries and the public sector to use as the nation begins to capitalize on one of the greatest opportunities of our times.”
Both positive and negative trends
The Stanford research indicates that the past two decades have been a mixed bag, with both positive and negative trends. For example, more Americans are engaging in healthy living activities like regular exercise, and fewer are smoking. But the level of obesity is rising, and Americans are now sitting for long stretches, an emergent health risk. Problems with diet and sleep are widespread and show no signs of abating.
The good news is that people, policies and private sector services can adapt and improve the outlook for century-long, healthy lives.
“Rather than focus on factors like social class and level of formal education – which clearly predict whether lives are long and healthy – we focused on factors that most Americans can control like exercising, eating well and spending high-quality time with friends,” said psychology Professor Laura Carstensen, who is the founding director of the Stanford Center on Longevity.
According to the research, financial security is a growing challenge for American longevity and well-being, particularly among less-educated people and the so-called millennials generation, which is defined as people currently between the ages of 25 and 34. Millennials who went to college are struggling with student loans and credit card debt five times that of 25- to 34-year-olds only 15 years ago.
“The outlook is even worse for the least educated, who are more likely to live at or near poverty levels, lack resources for emergencies, and are unable to invest in traditional asset growth vehicles that provide a financial cushion later in life,” said Martha Deevy, director of the Stanford Longevity Center’s financial security division.
Weaker social networks
Social engagement with individuals and communities appears weaker than 15 years ago, the research revealed. This is especially true for 55- to 64-year-olds, who exhibit notably weaker relationships with spouses, partners, family, friends and neighbors. They also are involved less in their communities than their predecessors.
“The vulnerability and disengagement in the group headed into retirement warrants further attention,” Carstensen said.
The study does not address trends in the use of social media.
Amy Yotopoulos, director of the center’s mind division, said, “It’s too soon to tell whether asynchronous, technology-mediated forms of social engagement – texting, chat, posting and tweeting – will provide comparable social benefits to more traditional forms of interaction with family and friends.”
The research focused on six age groups – 25 to 34; 35 to 44; 45 to 54; 55 to 64; 65 to 74; and 75 plus. The study tracked 27 indicators across at least 12 years, focusing on changes between two key points in time.
Data were drawn from sources including the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau; University of Michigan and National Institute on Aging; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Federal Reserve System; and the University of Wisconsin and National Institute on Aging.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/basics/risk-factors/con-20022540
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Risk factors
By Mayo Clinic Staff
People of all ages can have post-traumatic stress disorder. However, some factors may make you more likely to develop PTSD after a traumatic event, such as:
- Experiencing intense or long-lasting trauma
- Having experienced other trauma earlier in life, including childhood abuse or neglect
- Having a job that increases your risk of being exposed to traumatic events, such as military personnel and first responders
- Having other mental health problems, such as anxiety or depression
- Lacking a good support system of family and friends
- Having biological (blood) relatives with mental health problems, including PTSD or depression
http://courses.washington.edu/pbafadv/examples/PTSD%20Meta.pdf
RISK FACTORS FOR POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
Gender (female)
Younger age
Low SES
Lack of education
Low intelligence
Race (minority status)
Psychiatric history
Family psychiatric history
Childhood abuse/Other adverse childhood
Other previous trauma
Trauma severity
Lack of social support
Life stress
Trauma severity
Lack of social support
Life stress
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/types/disasters/effects_of_disasters_risk_and_resilience_factors.asp
Effects of Disasters: Risk and Resilience Factors
Gender and family
Almost always, women or girls suffer more negative effects than do men or boys. Disaster recovery is more stressful when children are present in the home. Women with spouses also experience more distress during recovery. Having a family member in the home who is extremely distressed is related to more stress for everyone. Marital stress has been found to increase after disasters. Also, conflicts between family members or lack of support in the home make it harder to recover from disasters.
Age
Adults who are in the age range of 40-60 are likely to be more distressed after disasters. The thinking is that if you are in that age range, you have more demands from job and family. Research on how children react to natural disasters is limited. In general, children show more severe distress after disasters than do adults. Higher stress in the parents is related to worse recovery in children.
Other factors specific to the survivor
Several factors related to a survivor's background and resources are important for recovery from disaster. Recovery is worse if you:
- Were not functioning well before the disaster.
- Have had no experience dealing with disasters.
- Must deal with other stressors after the disaster.
- Have poor self-esteem.
- Think you are uncared for by others.
- Think you have little control over what happens to you.
- Lack the capacity to manage stress.
Other factors have also been found to predict worse outcomes:
- Bereavement (death of someone close)
- Injury to self or another family member
- Life threat
- Panic, horror, or feelings like that during the disaster
- Being separated from family (especially among youth)
- Great loss of property
- Displacement (being forced to leave home)
Developing countries
These risk factors can be made worse if the disaster occurs in a developing country. Disasters in developing countries have more severe mental health impact than do disasters in developed countries. This is true even with less serious disasters. For example, natural disasters are generally thought to be less serious than human-caused. In developing countries, though, natural disasters have more severe effects than do human-caused disasters in developed countries.
Low or negative social support
The support of others can be both a risk and a resilience factor. Social support can weaken after disasters. This may be due to stress and the need for members of the support network to get on with their own lives. Sometimes the responses from others you rely on for support are negative. For example, someone may play down your problems, needs, or pain, or expect you to recover more quickly than is realistic. This is strongly linked to long-term distress in trauma survivors.
After a mass trauma, social conflicts, even those that have been resolved, may again be seen. Racial, religious, ethnic, social, and tribal divisions may recur as people try to gain access to much-needed resources. In families, conflicts may arise if family members went through different things in the disaster. This sets up different courses of recovery that often are not well understood among family members. Family members may also serve as distressing reminders to each other of the disaster.
Keep in mind that while millions of people have been directly affected by disasters, most of them do recover. Human nature is resilient, and most people have the ability to come back from a disaster. Plus, people sometimes report positive changes after disaster. They may re-think what is truly important and come to appreciate what they value most in life.
Resilience factors
Human resilience dictates that a large number of survivors will naturally recover from disasters over time. They will move on without having severe, long-lasting mental health issues. Certain factors increase resilience after disasters:
Social support
Social support is one of the keys to recovery after any trauma, including disaster. Social support increases well-being and limits distress after mass trauma. Being connected to others makes it easier to obtain knowledge needed for disaster recovery. Through social support, you can also find:
- Practical help solving problems.
- A sense of being understood and accepted.
- Sharing of trauma experiences.
- Some comfort that what you went through and how you responded is not "abnormal."
- Shared tips about coping.
Coping confidence
Over and over, research has found that coping self-efficacy - "believing that you can do it" - is related to better mental health outcomes for disaster survivors. When you think that you can cope no matter what happens to you, you tend to do better after a disaster. It is not so much feeling like you can handle things in general. Rather, it is believing you can cope with the results of a disaster that has been found to help survivors to recover.
Hope
Better outcomes after disasters or mass trauma are likely if you have one or more of the following:
- Optimism (because you can hope for the future)
- Expecting the positive
- Confidence that you can predict your life and yourself
- Belief that it is very likely that things will work out as well as can reasonably be expected
- Belief that outside sources, such as the government, are acting on your behalf with your welfare at heart
- Belief in God
- Positive superstitious belief, such as "I'm always lucky."
- Practical resources, including housing, job, money (Так ненавязчиво самое важное поставлено самым последним пунктом - H.B.)
http://www.psychologies.ru/wellbeing/harmony/vosstanovlenie-posle-neschastya-vremya-ne-lechit/
Восстановление после несчастья: время не лечит
То есть, оно, конечно, лечит, но совсем не так быстро и не так эффективно, как раньше казалось даже психологам. Тем, кто перенес удар судьбы, не стоит надеяться, что «все пройдет само».
Последние годы щедры на неприятные и даже трагические события. Эконмический кризис ведет к снижению доходов и потере работы сотнями тысяч людей, а участившиеся террористические атаки и катастрофы уносят сотни жизней. Это заставляет психологов активнее искать ответ на вопрос, как мы справляемся с травматическими переживаниями.
Прежние исследования рисовали оптимистическую картину. Их авторы отмечали, что большинство людей, перенесших серьезную психологическую травму, восстанавливались от последствий достаточно быстро и демонстрировали уровень благополучия, удовлетворенностью жизнью, сравнимый с периодом до травмы1.
Психологи Фрэнк Инфарна (Frank Infurna) и Суния Лутар (Suniya Luthar) из Университета штата Аризона (США) решили проверить эти результаты. Они исследовали более широкую выборку, чем в прежних экспериментах. В нее вошли 1241 человек, потерявших супругов, 1579 переживших развод и 2641 оставшихся без работы. Уже это позволяет считать результаты новой работы более достоверными2.
Фрэнк Инфарна и Суния Лутар усовершенствовали и методологию исследования. Прежде предполагалось, что условные группы более и менее устойчивых к трагическим событиям людей демонстрируют разную скорость, но при этом одинаковую динамику восстановления после травмы. Математическая модель, созданная на этот раз, позволила учесть не только различия между этими группами, но и между представителями внутри каждой из групп.
Полученные результаты приходится признать неутешительными. Сравнительно скорое самостоятельное восстановление, о котором говорили предыдущие исследования, оказалось наиболее редким исходом. Причем как среди более стойких, так и среди тех, кто реагирует на невзгоды особенно болезненно. В среднем же возвращение на дотравматический уровень психологического благополучия занимает у большинства людей, переживших тяжелые события, несколько лет.
Впрочем, даже если нам не нравятся результаты научных исследований, это не делает их менее полезными. Фрэнк Инфарна полагает, что полученные данные должны способствовать пересмотру отношения к тем, с кем жизнь обходится жестоко. Ранее считалось, что все так или иначе придет в норму само. Теперь же очевидно, что этот путь может оказаться слишком долгим. И люди, столкнувшиеся с ударами судьбы, не должны оставаться один на один со своими невзгодами. Они нуждаются в психотерапевтической помощи, позаботиться о которой в ситуации кризисов и драм национального масштаба – обязанность государства.
1 Например, G. Bonanno, E. Diminich «Annual Research Review: Positive adjustment to adversity - trajectories of minimal-impact resilience and emergent resilience». Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, April 2013.
2 F. Infurna, S. Luthar «Resilience to Major Life Stressors Is Not as Common as Thought». Perspectives on Psychological Science, March 2016.
http://www.dni.ru/culture/2016/4/11/333727.html
Ученые: брак повышает шансы победить рак
Ученые из калифорнийского университета Сан-Диего (США) провели исследование, в ходе которого выяснили, что семейных союз повышает шансы победить рак. Авторы научной работы проанализировали данные из регистра онкологических заболеваний штата Калифорния о болезни почти 800 000 человек, которым поставили диагноз рак с высокой вероятностью летального исхода. Выяснилось, что счастливые семейные люди более стойко переносили заболевание.
Проанализировав больных в период с 2000 по 2009 гг, специалисты выделили несколько факторов: социально-экономический статус, наличие медицинской страховки, а также семейное положение. Оказалось, что супружеская жизнь положительно влияет на ход болезни, как у мужчин, так и у женщин. Так, риск смерти холостяков оказался на 24% выше, чем у женатых мужчин. В то же самое время, смертность одиноких женщин была на 17% выше, чем у состоящих в браке.
http://www.ted.com/speakers/robert_waldinger
...The clearest message that we get from this 75-year study is this: Good relationships keep us happier and healthier. Period. The people who were the most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest at age 80.
Our most happily partnered men and women reported, in their 80s, that on the days when they had more physical pain, their mood stayed just as happy. But the people who were in unhappy relationships, on the days when they reported more physical pain, it was magnified by more emotional pain.
It turns out that being in a securely attached relationship to another person in your 80s is protective, that the people who are in relationships where they really feel they can count on the other person in times of need, those people's memories stay sharper longer.
В лекции говорится о гарвардском исследвании, которое проводилось в течении 75 лет и продолжается до сих пор. Цель исследования - понять, что делает людей счастливыми и здоровыми. Для исследования отобрали 724 мужчин, за жизнью которых внимательно следили год за годом с помощью опросников, интервью, визитов к ним домой, наблюдений за их поведением в быту, а также с помощью анализов и изучения их медицинских карт. Половина участников была выпускниками Гарварда, половина - из самых бедных и неблагополучных семей. Из изначальных участников в живых сейчас осталось 24 человека, и исследователи теперь включили в наблюдения и их детей (больше 2000).
В лекции также упоминаются результаты недавнего опроса среди миллениалсов (поколение конца 90х - начала 00х) об их жизненных целях, где 80 процентов ответили, что хотели бы разбогатеть, и 50 добавили, что еще хотели бы и прославиться. И это в целом совпадает с постоянными посылами, которые мы получаем: главное в жизни - это деньги, слава и достижения, и именно в это нужно инвестировать свои силы, чтобы быть счастливым и здоровым.
Однако, результаты гарвардского исследования показали, что есть нечто важнее материального достатка и общественного признаний. Самую главную роль в поддержании хорошего здоровья и обретения счастья играют отношения - семья, друзья и прочие социальные связи. Причем, не само их наличие, а их качество - отношения должны быть близкими, теплыми и быть, говоря языком Боулби, отношениями с безопасной привязанностью. Т.е. такими, где есть знание и ощущиние, что вы можете положиться на своего парнера, близких и друзей.
У людей состоящих в отношениях с безопасной привязанностью здоровье и память сохраняются в хорошем состоянии до старости. А у тех, кто живет в состоянии конфликта, кто чувствует себя одиноким и несчастен в отношениях, память с возрастом ухудшается. Даже физическая боль переносится по-разному: у несчастных и одиноких людей физическая боль ощущается в разы сильнее.
Для здоровья гораздо разрушительнее находиться в плохих отношениях, чем пережить стресс от развода - так говорят исследователи.
https://www.facebook.com/pavlovairen?fref=nf
Меня в жизни довольно часто кидали. И в прямом уголовном смысле, и в смысле переносном (от чего было ничуть не легче).
Меня предупреждали: не садись играть в карты в поезде, в гостинице, на пляже.
Но я была самоуверенна, садилась, и получала в полный рост, пока, наконец, не усвоила это правило. Единственным положительным результатом этого стало то, что я как-то моментально научилась вычислять карточных кидал.
Меня кидали в валютных обменниках. Ну, вот когда в результате кризиса остаешься почти без гроша, и вопрос нескольких лишних копеек за доллар приобретает суровую актуальность. В результате лишалась и этих последних денег.
Меня кидали по работе. То есть, когда работаешь с человеком, знакомым не первый день, под честное слово, а когда работа сделана, тебе говорят, с милой улыбкой: извини, мать, но денег нет. И не будет.
Однако, куда более обидное кидалово, это когда человек, к которому ты относишься, как к человеку честному (ну, он не давал оснований относиться к нему иначе), лжет, глядя тебе в глаза. Вот лжет - и не краснеет. А ты, не зная, что он лжет, ему веришь (ну, он же не давал оснований ему не верить).
А потом оказывается, что всё им сказанное - вранье. И ты спрашиваешь его: как же так? А он смотрит тебе в глаза, и говорит: не было этого. Тебе это приснилось.
Но и это не самое обидное (хотя, казалось бы, куда уже).
Самое обидное, когда человек смотрит тебе в глаза и говорит: черное - это белое. А ты не можешь себе представить, что вот так можно, и потому талдычишь, как дурак: да нет же, посмотри, белое - вот такое (и тычешь ему листок бумаги, или там - тряпочку беленькую), а это - черное. Но он, глядя на тебя с улыбкой, стоит на своем (они все почему-то всегда улыбаются в этот момент!). И ты понимаешь, что он не хуже тебя знает, где черное, где белое.
И вот это совершенно детское чувство бессилия перед ложью - куда сильнее всех остальных обид...
http://patch.com/ By PAIGE AUSTIN
Study: Smart Phone Distracted Parenting May Make Kids Reckless
Scientists found that fragmented caretaking leads to abnormal brains in rats, and distracted parents may have a similar affect on children.
A study on “fragmented” caretaking of rodents has given UC Irvine researchers a window into the effect that parents’ usage of devices such as smart phones can have on babies, according to a study published this week.
A study of rats subjected to chaotic and disruptive caretaking showed issues with brain development that the UCI scientists have extrapolated to the effects of smart-phone use, Dr. Tallie Z. Baram said.
“We didn’t set out to study cell phones,” Baram said, but the conclusions of the study could be applied to how the devices can make caretakers absent from much-needed nurturing of infants.
“We set out to find out what are the important signals from mother or father that the baby’s brain needs to be at its best when he grows up, which is what every parent wants,” Baram told City News Service.
Baram and her team at the Conte Center on Brain Programming in Adolescent Vulnerabilities studied adolescent rats subjected to predictable and unpredictable maternal care.
The adolescent rats reared in unpredictable environments showed issues with the pleasure center of their brains, Baram said.
“We gave them the choice between water and sugar water and these guys couldn’t care,” Baram said of the rodents subjected to a chaotic upbringing. “We let them play with slightly smaller mates and these guys interacted with them, but didn’t do all the fun stuff. This is how we know the pleasure system is messed up.”
The disjointed environment, which included limiting bedding and nesting materials in cages for a week, affected the development of the brain’s dopamine- receptor system, Baram said. Infants need predictability to help that part of the brain develop normally.
“There’s a critical period when these connections in brain cells have to happen,” Baram said.
An improperly developed pleasure center system could lead adolescents to engage in risky behavior, Baram said.
“If you can’t get nice pleasure from riding a motorbike at 40 miles per hour, then you might try it at 140 miles per hour,” Baram said. “So it’s associated with risk-taking behavior.”
The scientists found that it leads to a condition called “anhedonia,” which is difficulty in feeling happy and can lead to depression.
“In analogy, we speculate that patterns of maternal-derived sensory input, specifically unpredictable and fragmented patterns, might influence the maturation of emotional systems within the developing brain,” the study says. “While the mechanisms for this speculated process require further study, its implications are profound: identifying optimal nurturing environments for emotional outcome may help reduce the high and increasing prevalence of emotional problems during adolescence.”
Baram’s team is about a year and a half into studying the influences on fragmented caretaking for humans. There is data on some youths taken over the past decade that the team is building on.
The study was published in Translational Psychiatry.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/jamie-varon/2014/12/this-is-how-we-date-now/
This Is How We Date Now
Jamie Varon
We don’t commit now. We don’t see the point. They’ve always said there are so many fish in the sea, but never before has that sea of fish been right at our fingertips on OkCupid, Tinder, Grindr, Dattch, take your pick. We can order up a human being in the same way we can order up pad thai on Seamless. We think intimacy lies in a perfectly-executed string of emoji. We think effort is a “good morning” text. We say romance is dead, because maybe it is, but maybe we just need to reinvent it. Maybe romance in our modern age is putting the phone down long enough to look in each other’s eyes at dinner. Maybe romance is deleting Tinder off your phone after an incredible first date with someone. Maybe romance is still there, we just don’t know what it looks like now.
When we choose—if we commit—we are still one eye wandering at the options. We want the beautiful cut of filet mignon, but we’re too busy eyeing the mediocre buffet, because choice. Because choice. Our choices are killing us. We think choice means something. We think opportunity is good. We think the more chances we have, the better. But, it makes everything watered-down. Never mind actually feeling satisfied, we don’t even understand what satisfaction looks like, sounds like, feels like. We’re one foot out the door, because outside that door is more, more, more. We don’t see who’s right in front of our eyes asking to be loved, because no one is asking to be loved. We long for something that we still want to believe exists. Yet, we are looking for the next thrill, the next jolt of excitement, the next instant gratification.
We soothe ourselves and distract ourselves and, if we can’t even face the demons inside our own brain, how can we be expected to stick something out, to love someone even when it’s not easy to love them? We bail. We leave. We see a limitless world in a way that no generation before us has seen. We can open up a new tab, look at pictures of Portugal, pull out a Visa, and book a plane ticket. We don’t do this, but we can. The point is that we know we can, even if we don’t have the resources to do so. There are always other tantalizing options. Open up Instagram and see the lives of others, the life we could have. See the places we’re not traveling to. See the lives we’re not living. See the people we’re not dating. We bombard ourselves with stimuli, input, input, input, and we wonder why we’re miserable. We wonder why we’re dissatisfied. We wonder why nothing lasts and everything feels a little hopeless. Because, we have no idea how to see our lives for what they are, instead of what they aren’t.
And, even if we find it. Say we find that person we love who loves us. Commitment. Intimacy. “I love you.” We do it. We find it. Then, quickly, we live it for others. We tell people we’re in a relationship on Facebook. We throw our pictures up on Instagram. We become a “we.” We make it seem shiny and perfect because what we choose to share is the highlight reel. We don’t share the 3am fights, the reddened eyes, the tear-stained bedsheets. We don’t write status updates about how their love for us shines a light on where we don’t love ourselves. We don’t tweet 140 characters of sadness when we’re having the kinds of conversations that can make or break the future of our love. This is not what we share. Shiny picture. Happy couple. Love is perfect.
Then, we see these other happy, shiny couples and we compare. We are The Emoji Generation. Choice Culture. The Comparison Generation. Measuring up. Good enough. The best. Never before have we had such an incredible cornucopia of markers for what it looks like to live the Best Life Possible. We input, input, input and soon find ourselves in despair. We’ll never be good enough, because what we’re trying to measure up to just does not fucking exist. These lives do not exist. These relationships do not exist. Yet, we can’t believe it. We see it with our own eyes. And, we want it. And, we will make ourselves miserable until we get it.
So, we break up. We break up because we’re not good enough, our lives aren’t good enough, our relationship isn’t good enough. We swipe, swipe, swipe, just a bit more on Tinder. We order someone up to our door just like a pizza. And, the cycle starts again. Emoji. “Good morning” text. Intimacy. Put down the phone. Couple selfie. Shiny, happy couple. Compare. Compare. Compare. The inevitable creeping in of latent, subtle dissatisfaction. The fights. “Something is wrong, but I don’t know what it is.” “This isn’t working.” “I need something more.” And, we break up. Another love lost. Another graveyard of shiny, happy couple selfies.
On to the next. Searching for the elusive more. The next fix. The next gratification. The next quick hit. Living our lives in 140 characters, 5 second snaps, frozen filtered images, four minute movies, attention here, attention there. More as an illusion. We worry about settling, all the while making ourselves suffer thinking that anything less than the shiny, happy filtered life we’ve been accustomed to is settling. What is settling? We don’t know, but we fucking don’t want it. If it’s not perfect, it’s settling. If it’s not glittery filtered love, settling. If it’s not Pinterest-worthy, settling.
We realize that this more we want is a lie. We want phone calls. We want to see a face we love absent of the blue dim of a phone screen. We want slowness. We want simplicity. We want a life that does not need the validation of likes, favorites, comments, upvotes. We may not know yet that we want this, but we do. We want connection, true connection. We want a love that builds, not a love that gets discarded for the next hit. We want to come home to people. We want to lay down our heads at the end of our lives and know we lived well, we lived the fuck out of our lives. This is what we want even if we don’t know it yet.
Yet, this is not how we date now. This is not how we love now.
https://medium.com/@amzin/%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D1%8F-%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81-%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2-%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BC-2bbb3ab273d4#.co7m32tcq
http://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=137534&org=NSF&from=news
February 3, 2016
Loneliness is as close to universal as experiences come. Almost everyone has felt isolated, even rejected.
But the power of loneliness -- its potential for causing depression and other serious health problems as well as its surprising role in keeping humans safe from harm -- may be more profound than researchers had previously presumed, says neuroscience researcher John Cacioppo of the University of Chicago.
Cacioppo has spent nearly three decades exploring the social nature of the human brain, working to find the mechanisms behind traits such as loneliness, empathy, synchrony and emotional contagion. Through his research, funded by the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, and the National Institute on Aging, he's helped turn loneliness from a curious afterthought in neuroscience to a serious area for research and explanation.
He and his collaborators have also incorporated new technology at each stage of their research, combining methods ranging from behavior studies to endocrinological testing, electrical and functional neuroimaging, and genetics. They're using those tools to identify the neural, hormonal, cellular and genetic mechanisms underlying social structures.
Using what they've learned, Cacioppo's team is evaluating therapies for loneliness, finding the most effective treatments and working to improve them. The researchers' collaborators include the U.S. Army, which turned to Cacioppo for help with studies that could be incorporated into training to help protect soldiers from isolation and related social problems.
During a visit to NSF, Cacioppo took some time to talk about loneliness -- what it is, where it comes from and how it affects people.
Q. How do you define loneliness, in terms of your work?
A. It's defined as perceived social isolation. People can feel like they're on the social perimeter for a lot of different reasons. If you're the last one chosen on a high school team, that can feel really unpleasant. It's also clearly an evaluation of your net worth to that group. If that's a valued group, it matters to you. If it's not a valued group, it's no big deal.
That has effects on not just emotions but cognition. Research at Rush University has shown that older adults are more likely to develop dementia if they feel chronic loneliness.
Q. So just the perception, not whether or not someone is actually isolated, can trigger a physiological reaction?
A. Much of what goes with loneliness -- behaviorally, physiologically -- is so deep that we've got it in our genes. It's just like if I were to provide a painful stimulus to your arm, you would withdraw and complain of being hurt. That's not something you learn. The pain withdrawal reflex is in place due to your genetic endowment. And that mechanism is in place because it protects your body from tissue damage.
Loneliness is a mechanism that's in place because we need, as a social species, to be able to identify when our connections with others for mutual aid and protection are being threatened or absent. If there's no connection, there could be mortal consequences. Those are threats to our survival and reproductive success.
Q. Does that make loneliness almost like a fever -- unpleasant, but there's a purpose to it?
A. That's exactly right. You would not want to eliminate the temporary feeling of loneliness. We've argued there's a benefit to that response to perceived isolation. But, like many individual variations of these kinds of states, there are pathologic extremes. I might be so sensitive to feeling connected or isolated as to be a complete wreck, or I can be so insensitive as to be a psychopath. That's just part of the normal distribution of individual differences that, for the most part, helps to protect our social body just as pain helps to protect our physical body.
Q. How does loneliness affect our social behavior and interactions?
A. When you feel lonely, you get more defensive. You focus more on self-preservation even though this is not done intentionally. Completely unbeknownst to you, your brain is focusing more on self-preservation than the preservation of those around you. This, in turn, can make you less pleasant to be around. Over time, this can increase the likelihood of negative social interactions. Thus, the focus on self-preservation can have short-term survival benefits but -- if not reversed -- can have long-term costs.
Q. It seems that loneliness can serve a useful purpose but -- almost like an immune system that starts attacking things that aren't actually threats -- it can go out of control.
A. That's exactly right. It's also very much like our stress system. Our stress system emerged in a different time of human history, and now we get stressed when we're in traffic. There's no saber-toothed tiger attacking; there's no person with a spear coming to get me. I'm sitting in a safe car, but there's still that level of stress and hostility that a traffic jam can engender. Our stress response contributed to survival across human history, but in contemporary society chronic stress also contributes to morbidity and mortality.
Stress has an adaptive value, even today, although not to the extent we're expressing it. But knowing that does not mean we can simply turn it off when we wish. It's the same thing with loneliness. We're trying to educate the public about this, to say that loneliness isn't something that only certain individuals have. It's something we all have, we can all fall into, and nearly all of us experience at some point in our lives.
Q. Does this type of research into loneliness tell us anything about humans as a species?
A. The perception of loneliness is exacerbated by the feeling that one doesn't have anyone on whom he or she can depend or who can depend on him or her. As children, we're dependent on adults. When we grow to be adults, we think we're supposed to become independent -- the king of the mountain. But in social mammals -- not just humans -- becoming an adult means being the individual upon whom others can depend. Our Western cultural notion of human nature does not capture our actual social nature particularly well.
Q. When you were starting your research into isolation decades ago, behavioral science and brain science weren't as closely linked as they are today, correct?
A. There were a number of people trying to put them together, but we didn't have the neuroimaging technologies we have today that have really transformed what we can ask. Today, someone can really look at the working, normal brain.
I was doing electroencephalography (EEG) 40 years ago, and we looked at very broad questions. I was doing it 20 years ago, and we looked at relatively sophisticated questions compared to 20 years prior, but not very sophisticated compared to today. I'm now asking questions about the whole brain in action rather than a single region in isolation. And genetics and genomics are also increasingly integrated into investigations of the social brain.
Q. The questions that you started asking at the very beginning of your research -- have they led you on a linear path to where you are today? Or has your research taken you in unexpected directions?
A. Yes to both. The question we started with wasn't about loneliness and continues to not be about loneliness. It's about who we are as a species. What, fundamentally, are our brains doing? What are the factors that influence brain function? Partly, we're showing that the brain is organized in part to deal with and to promote salutary connections to other people. The fundamental question was "what is the social nature of our brain?"
One of the things that surprised me was how important loneliness proved to be. It predicted morbidity. It predicted mortality. And that shocked me. When we experimentally manipulated loneliness, we found surprising changes in the "personalities" of people. There's a lot more power to the perception of being socially isolated than any of us had thought.
-- Rob Margetta, (703) 292-2663 rmargett@nsf.gov
Investigators
John Cacioppo
http://patch.com/california/livermore/new-research-spells-out-three-things-we-need-control-live-longer-healthier-lives
BY CLIFTON B. PARKER/Stanford News Serice
More Americans are living to their 80s, 90s and beyond, unthinkable just a century ago. Most say they expect to live to their 80s or longer, and want to live to 100 if they can do so in good health.
But the policies, products and personal behaviors to support such lives are not yet widespread, according to a new study by Stanford’s Center on Longevity.
The report, which was released today, is titled, The Sightlines Project: Seeing Our Way to Living Long, Living Well in 21st Century America.
The research focuses on trends in three key areas scientifically associated with longevity – health, financial security and social connections. The benchmark analysis is based on data from eight multi-year studies that include more than 1.2 million Americans.
“The Sightlines Project shows a way to a better future for Americans as they live longer than ever in history,” said Stanford President John L. Hennessy. “It provides a data-driven analysis for researchers, industries and the public sector to use as the nation begins to capitalize on one of the greatest opportunities of our times.”
Both positive and negative trends
The Stanford research indicates that the past two decades have been a mixed bag, with both positive and negative trends. For example, more Americans are engaging in healthy living activities like regular exercise, and fewer are smoking. But the level of obesity is rising, and Americans are now sitting for long stretches, an emergent health risk. Problems with diet and sleep are widespread and show no signs of abating.
The good news is that people, policies and private sector services can adapt and improve the outlook for century-long, healthy lives.
“Rather than focus on factors like social class and level of formal education – which clearly predict whether lives are long and healthy – we focused on factors that most Americans can control like exercising, eating well and spending high-quality time with friends,” said psychology Professor Laura Carstensen, who is the founding director of the Stanford Center on Longevity.
According to the research, financial security is a growing challenge for American longevity and well-being, particularly among less-educated people and the so-called millennials generation, which is defined as people currently between the ages of 25 and 34. Millennials who went to college are struggling with student loans and credit card debt five times that of 25- to 34-year-olds only 15 years ago.
“The outlook is even worse for the least educated, who are more likely to live at or near poverty levels, lack resources for emergencies, and are unable to invest in traditional asset growth vehicles that provide a financial cushion later in life,” said Martha Deevy, director of the Stanford Longevity Center’s financial security division.
Weaker social networks
Social engagement with individuals and communities appears weaker than 15 years ago, the research revealed. This is especially true for 55- to 64-year-olds, who exhibit notably weaker relationships with spouses, partners, family, friends and neighbors. They also are involved less in their communities than their predecessors.
“The vulnerability and disengagement in the group headed into retirement warrants further attention,” Carstensen said.
The study does not address trends in the use of social media.
Amy Yotopoulos, director of the center’s mind division, said, “It’s too soon to tell whether asynchronous, technology-mediated forms of social engagement – texting, chat, posting and tweeting – will provide comparable social benefits to more traditional forms of interaction with family and friends.”
The research focused on six age groups – 25 to 34; 35 to 44; 45 to 54; 55 to 64; 65 to 74; and 75 plus. The study tracked 27 indicators across at least 12 years, focusing on changes between two key points in time.
Data were drawn from sources including the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Census Bureau; University of Michigan and National Institute on Aging; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Federal Reserve System; and the University of Wisconsin and National Institute on Aging.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder/basics/risk-factors/con-20022540
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Risk factors
By Mayo Clinic Staff
People of all ages can have post-traumatic stress disorder. However, some factors may make you more likely to develop PTSD after a traumatic event, such as:
- Experiencing intense or long-lasting trauma
- Having experienced other trauma earlier in life, including childhood abuse or neglect
- Having a job that increases your risk of being exposed to traumatic events, such as military personnel and first responders
- Having other mental health problems, such as anxiety or depression
- Lacking a good support system of family and friends
- Having biological (blood) relatives with mental health problems, including PTSD or depression
http://courses.washington.edu/pbafadv/examples/PTSD%20Meta.pdf
RISK FACTORS FOR POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
Gender (female)
Younger age
Low SES
Lack of education
Low intelligence
Race (minority status)
Psychiatric history
Family psychiatric history
Childhood abuse/Other adverse childhood
Other previous trauma
Trauma severity
Lack of social support
Life stress
Trauma severity
Lack of social support
Life stress
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/types/disasters/effects_of_disasters_risk_and_resilience_factors.asp
Effects of Disasters: Risk and Resilience Factors
Gender and family
Almost always, women or girls suffer more negative effects than do men or boys. Disaster recovery is more stressful when children are present in the home. Women with spouses also experience more distress during recovery. Having a family member in the home who is extremely distressed is related to more stress for everyone. Marital stress has been found to increase after disasters. Also, conflicts between family members or lack of support in the home make it harder to recover from disasters.
Age
Adults who are in the age range of 40-60 are likely to be more distressed after disasters. The thinking is that if you are in that age range, you have more demands from job and family. Research on how children react to natural disasters is limited. In general, children show more severe distress after disasters than do adults. Higher stress in the parents is related to worse recovery in children.
Other factors specific to the survivor
Several factors related to a survivor's background and resources are important for recovery from disaster. Recovery is worse if you:
- Were not functioning well before the disaster.
- Have had no experience dealing with disasters.
- Must deal with other stressors after the disaster.
- Have poor self-esteem.
- Think you are uncared for by others.
- Think you have little control over what happens to you.
- Lack the capacity to manage stress.
Other factors have also been found to predict worse outcomes:
- Bereavement (death of someone close)
- Injury to self or another family member
- Life threat
- Panic, horror, or feelings like that during the disaster
- Being separated from family (especially among youth)
- Great loss of property
- Displacement (being forced to leave home)
Developing countries
These risk factors can be made worse if the disaster occurs in a developing country. Disasters in developing countries have more severe mental health impact than do disasters in developed countries. This is true even with less serious disasters. For example, natural disasters are generally thought to be less serious than human-caused. In developing countries, though, natural disasters have more severe effects than do human-caused disasters in developed countries.
Low or negative social support
The support of others can be both a risk and a resilience factor. Social support can weaken after disasters. This may be due to stress and the need for members of the support network to get on with their own lives. Sometimes the responses from others you rely on for support are negative. For example, someone may play down your problems, needs, or pain, or expect you to recover more quickly than is realistic. This is strongly linked to long-term distress in trauma survivors.
After a mass trauma, social conflicts, even those that have been resolved, may again be seen. Racial, religious, ethnic, social, and tribal divisions may recur as people try to gain access to much-needed resources. In families, conflicts may arise if family members went through different things in the disaster. This sets up different courses of recovery that often are not well understood among family members. Family members may also serve as distressing reminders to each other of the disaster.
Keep in mind that while millions of people have been directly affected by disasters, most of them do recover. Human nature is resilient, and most people have the ability to come back from a disaster. Plus, people sometimes report positive changes after disaster. They may re-think what is truly important and come to appreciate what they value most in life.
Resilience factors
Human resilience dictates that a large number of survivors will naturally recover from disasters over time. They will move on without having severe, long-lasting mental health issues. Certain factors increase resilience after disasters:
Social support
Social support is one of the keys to recovery after any trauma, including disaster. Social support increases well-being and limits distress after mass trauma. Being connected to others makes it easier to obtain knowledge needed for disaster recovery. Through social support, you can also find:
- Practical help solving problems.
- A sense of being understood and accepted.
- Sharing of trauma experiences.
- Some comfort that what you went through and how you responded is not "abnormal."
- Shared tips about coping.
Coping confidence
Over and over, research has found that coping self-efficacy - "believing that you can do it" - is related to better mental health outcomes for disaster survivors. When you think that you can cope no matter what happens to you, you tend to do better after a disaster. It is not so much feeling like you can handle things in general. Rather, it is believing you can cope with the results of a disaster that has been found to help survivors to recover.
Hope
Better outcomes after disasters or mass trauma are likely if you have one or more of the following:
- Optimism (because you can hope for the future)
- Expecting the positive
- Confidence that you can predict your life and yourself
- Belief that it is very likely that things will work out as well as can reasonably be expected
- Belief that outside sources, such as the government, are acting on your behalf with your welfare at heart
- Belief in God
- Positive superstitious belief, such as "I'm always lucky."
- Practical resources, including housing, job, money (Так ненавязчиво самое важное поставлено самым последним пунктом - H.B.)
http://www.psychologies.ru/wellbeing/harmony/vosstanovlenie-posle-neschastya-vremya-ne-lechit/
Восстановление после несчастья: время не лечит
То есть, оно, конечно, лечит, но совсем не так быстро и не так эффективно, как раньше казалось даже психологам. Тем, кто перенес удар судьбы, не стоит надеяться, что «все пройдет само».
Последние годы щедры на неприятные и даже трагические события. Эконмический кризис ведет к снижению доходов и потере работы сотнями тысяч людей, а участившиеся террористические атаки и катастрофы уносят сотни жизней. Это заставляет психологов активнее искать ответ на вопрос, как мы справляемся с травматическими переживаниями.
Прежние исследования рисовали оптимистическую картину. Их авторы отмечали, что большинство людей, перенесших серьезную психологическую травму, восстанавливались от последствий достаточно быстро и демонстрировали уровень благополучия, удовлетворенностью жизнью, сравнимый с периодом до травмы1.
Психологи Фрэнк Инфарна (Frank Infurna) и Суния Лутар (Suniya Luthar) из Университета штата Аризона (США) решили проверить эти результаты. Они исследовали более широкую выборку, чем в прежних экспериментах. В нее вошли 1241 человек, потерявших супругов, 1579 переживших развод и 2641 оставшихся без работы. Уже это позволяет считать результаты новой работы более достоверными2.
Фрэнк Инфарна и Суния Лутар усовершенствовали и методологию исследования. Прежде предполагалось, что условные группы более и менее устойчивых к трагическим событиям людей демонстрируют разную скорость, но при этом одинаковую динамику восстановления после травмы. Математическая модель, созданная на этот раз, позволила учесть не только различия между этими группами, но и между представителями внутри каждой из групп.
Полученные результаты приходится признать неутешительными. Сравнительно скорое самостоятельное восстановление, о котором говорили предыдущие исследования, оказалось наиболее редким исходом. Причем как среди более стойких, так и среди тех, кто реагирует на невзгоды особенно болезненно. В среднем же возвращение на дотравматический уровень психологического благополучия занимает у большинства людей, переживших тяжелые события, несколько лет.
Впрочем, даже если нам не нравятся результаты научных исследований, это не делает их менее полезными. Фрэнк Инфарна полагает, что полученные данные должны способствовать пересмотру отношения к тем, с кем жизнь обходится жестоко. Ранее считалось, что все так или иначе придет в норму само. Теперь же очевидно, что этот путь может оказаться слишком долгим. И люди, столкнувшиеся с ударами судьбы, не должны оставаться один на один со своими невзгодами. Они нуждаются в психотерапевтической помощи, позаботиться о которой в ситуации кризисов и драм национального масштаба – обязанность государства.
1 Например, G. Bonanno, E. Diminich «Annual Research Review: Positive adjustment to adversity - trajectories of minimal-impact resilience and emergent resilience». Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, April 2013.
2 F. Infurna, S. Luthar «Resilience to Major Life Stressors Is Not as Common as Thought». Perspectives on Psychological Science, March 2016.
