I am not sure why I'm posting this presidentially, except that it feels like some sort of bizarre semi-humblebrag not to. This was the article I read on this study, and reading it felt revelatory--someone was describing my life experiences in a way that tied together different points that I hadn't quite been able to tie together so nicely. Just understanding the linkages helps. But then I got to the end of the article and was wondering... ok so what if any remediation can be done at this point? Yoga or deep-breathing exercises to help unwind? Or what?
Extensive blockquotes follow, just because.
"We call this phenomenon 'skin-deep resilience,'" said Gregory Miller, a psychology professor at Northwestern and the lead author on the study. "On the surface, they're resilient, right? They are doing well in school. Their mental health is good. They have no trouble with the law, no trouble with substance abuse."
"But when you 'unzip' them and look inside at health, they look surprisingly worse than you'd expect," he added.
"If you're one of the kids in our study, you may show up to college and find that you're very different than most of your peers, and that fitting in, finding a social network, and finding friends who can help you cope with the inevitable challenges and frustrations of college isn't an easy task," Miller said.
Discrimination is another likely piece of the puzzle. Many of the Northwestern-Georgia study subjects reported feeling alienated on their college campuses, including some brush-ups with outright discrimination.
In response to these social challenges, the "strivers," as the researchers called them, doubled down on their resolve to succeed academically. "They just pour themselves into their studies in this very intense way," Miller said.
Naturally, this single-minded focus on academics takes a toll over time. The kids, whose families and communities invested so much in their success, feel obligated to continue to climb the socioeconomic ladder, and sometimes neglect key components of health, like physical activity and good diet, in the process. "They feel this tremendous sense of obligation to do well and give back," Miller said. "That's a lot of pressure for anybody to handle."
Crap. I think I count as lazy and advantaged.
1: Do you have premature chronic diseases and aging diseases?
3: More like "age-related ailments" than "chronic diseases", but more or less yes.
It seems that they're looking at DNA methylation. Would there be a way of looking at health outcomes for the different gruops more directly?
In the current study, they look at DNA methylation. I think in the one from two year ago, they looked at blood pressure/diabetes/etc type of age-related health disorders.
Ironically, the people who can conduct a study on DNA methylation probably rose from impoverished backgrounds through unusual levels of self-discipline.
The findings don't surprise me. As per 1, a lot of the descriptions ring true to me.
The study draws a distinction in terms of self-control between free spirits and methylated spirits.
Lazy and advantaged could literally be my epitaph.
So this is just looking at DNA methylation - it's probably too early to look for actual health effects. (Especially since I would expect lots of positive health effects from self-control, which actually is linked to e.g. lower levels of substance abuse.)
Hey, but drink a ton and abuse narcotics, and you can handle the stress just fine.
"So this is just looking at DNA methylation"
Yeah this study will likely not hold up.
6 to 12 and 14. There was an earlier study using different indicators.
Before this drops off the front page, I just want to say thanks for posting it. Depressing, but I appreciate having the links.
6: I quickly scanned a 2013 study by Chen and Miller and it seems that the earlier research is focused on explaining why many low SES individuals have good health (the answer being that certain coping strategies can shield people from the adverse health consequences of low SES). The heartbreaking "poor people who break the cycle of poverty suffer the most" story seems to be only associated with the 2015 DNA methylation study.
This isn't exactly based on a deep read of the studies here, but the recent paper has all the markings of something that will not hold up to much scrutiny. The media attention paid to the claim seems to be greatly in excess of the depth and breadth of the research behind it.
I wonder what happens if you are born super privileged, and have all the makings of good fortune and resilience and ease for the first part of your childhood, and then suddenly drop into poverty and problems for a looooong time. (like, the rest of your childhood into your teens). Whenever I read about resilient children I think "hey! that sounds like my childhood! I think I was like that!" Apparently I once even passed the "marshmallow" test, though not with marshmallows, since I would never have eaten those anyway. Whenever I read about non-resilient teens and young adults and regular adults I feel mixed resonances and have a general sense of "man, that sounds exhausting/reminds me of all the most exhausting times in my life." Can one subconsciously decide that resilience is just not worth it, given the circumstances? Is it possible my growing laziness is actually a form of self-preservation?
(Please say yes, mineshaft.)
Is it possible my growing laziness is actually a form of self-preservation?
We accept her. We accept her. One of us. One of us.
Ile, I think that's really interesting and that you're on to something. There are elements of resilience burnout, maybe, or to hitting limits or I don't know. It definitely sounds plausible that skills you need to rely on in a crisis situation might not be the ones you need at another time, so maybe your resilience is lying fallow now.
Focussing empirical research on resiliency might have interesting unexpected consequences. It appeals to people, because they think it will give them a chance to say "suck it up, buttercup" to people in hard times and somehow have the backing of science. But if empirical research pans out, it will simply determine which people will suck it up and in what circumstances. After all, it is just looking for causes.
But this means that, far from enabling people to tell others to man up, show a little testicular fortitude, and pull themselves up by their bootstraps, the science will just tell you when lectures on gumption are futile. Not that it will stop anyone from giving them.
It actually comes close to my brilliant idea of medicalizing laziness. Whenever someone wants to dismiss another person's mental problems, they say things like "Oh, he's not depressed. This isn't some disease. He's just lazy." Once laziness is classified as a disease, you can't use it to derail a conversation into the blaming/yelling mode beloved by most moralists.
I liked this article's exploration of a set of sisters and what seems to be driving their different levels of resilience and the stories they tell themselves about that. (2006? Gah, I'm old!)
19/20: nice mineshafty sound effects.
"your resilience is lying fallow now."
Wow, that's a really lyrical line,, Thorn.
Once laziness is classified as a disease, you can't use it to derail a conversation into the blaming/yelling mode beloved by most moralists
hmm. In my experience such derailment is often unreasonably resilient. But there's also this weird essentialist worldview that seems to fuel many such moralists: bad people are bad by nature. they can't help it, and we should yell at them.