If we can be happy at any age is it worthwhile trying to avoid aging? Is aging something we can simply fix? Aubrey de Grey makes an impassioned plea for ending the aging process. Watch his TED talk and decide if you agree with his provocative stance on aging.
Aubrey de Grey: A roadmap to end aging
Posted by Shona Lockhart on 6th May 2013
Want to live to a ripe old age? Having a positive outlook on life maybe the key to doing just that. The article below from CBS News looks at how optimism can lead to longevity. The TEDxWomen talk below by psychologist Laura Carstensen shows that not only does being optimistic make you live longer, but research shows that you also become happier and more content as you get older and are likely to have a more positive outlook on the world. Living to an old age does not mean that your quality of life has to diminish, on the contrary it is likely to increase. Enjoy the article and the video and let me know what you think.
Researchers discover optimism may lead to longevity
(CBS News) The secret to a long life may be something as simple as a sunny disposition.
In a study published in the journal Aging on May 21, researchers surveyed people who were over the age of 95 and found that most of them had positive personality traits, making them upbeat and relaxed about life. That suggests personality traits such optimism could be part of the longevity genes mix, they said.
Want to live to 100? What experts recommend
“When I started working with centenarians, I thought we’d find that they survived so long in part because they were mean and ornery,” Dr. Nir Barzila, the Ingeborg and Ira Leon Rennert Chair of Aging Research, and director of Einstein’s Institute for Aging Research, said in the press release. “But when we assessed the personalities of these 243 centenarians, we found qualities that clearly reflect a positive attitude towards life. Most were outgoing, optimistic and easygoing. They considered laughter an important part of life and had a large social network. They expressed emotions openly rather than bottling them up.”
The study is part of Albert Einstein College of Medicine’s Longevity Genes Project, which specifically looks at aging. Over 500 Ashkenazi Jews over the age of 95 along with 700 of their offspring have been involved in the project.
According to the researchers, approximately 53,000 people in the U.S. are over 100 years old, which accounts for 0.2 percent of the population. But, the number of people reaching 100 from America has increased 8 percent per year.
For this particular study, 243 Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jews over the age of 95 were given a 98-point questionnaire that specifically looked at personality traits. Three-fourths of the group were women, and the average age was 97.6 years old. Since they were all the same ethnicity, it allowed researchers to compare results from a similar genetic pool.
What scientists found out was that many of the near-centenarians were optimistic, easygoing, liked to laughed and were outgoing than introverted. They also were more likely to express their emotions, rather than keeping it all inside.
Dr. Thomas Perls, director of the New England Centenarian Study at Boston University Medical Center, told HealthDay that the results about expressing how they felt were in line with several previous studies. One of Perls studies showed that those who were highly neurotic tended to dwell on things and internalize their stress.
“This can translate into increased risk for cardiovascular disease,” he said to HealthDay. “High extroversion may lead to a better ability to establish social support networks — which is very good for older people – and to be cognitively engaged.”
Perls suggested that activities like physical exercise, yoga, tai chi and laughing a lot could help relieve tension. Also, sleeping was shown to have some beneficial effect.
The good news is that if you aren’t exactly that ray of sunshine, you still have time to change. Barzilai said that some evidence shows that people can change their attitudes between the ages of 70 to 100, and it isn’t exactly know if the subjects were always optimistic their entire lives.
“Nevertheless, our findings suggest that centenarians share particular personality traits and that genetically-based aspects of personality may play an important role in achieving both good health and exceptional longevity,” he said in the press release.
Article originally published in CBS News on 30th May 2012
“When we recognize that we don’t have all the time in the world, we see our priorities most clearly.” Laura Carstensen
Laura Carstensen – TEDx Women talk
Posted by Shona Lockhart on 4th May 2013
“What lies in our power to do, lies in our power not to do.” Aristotle
Continuing with the theme of looking at change and how we can alter our behaviour to be happier this interesting article written by Susan Krauss Whitbourne looks at different theories about what actually motivates us. Please read the article and see if you can identify with any of these theories of behaviour so that you can recognise which would be the best way for you to bring about positive change.
Why #2: Drive Reduction Theory. This next approach to motivation proposes that organisms large and small, simple to complex, prefer the state of homeostasis in which all of their needs are fulfilled. Their “drives,” in other words (the need states that propel behavior) must be “reduced.” Everyone might have a different definition of homeostasis-perhaps yours is sleeping late on a weekend morning, or just enjoying a relaxing drink in a cozy chair. Drive reduction theory’s critics agree that it’s great to have your needs met at least some of the time. However, if the theory were true, no one would ever seek out excitement. No one would go bungee jumping or seek comparable mental challenges.
Why #4: Incentive Theory. Our behavior may also be determined by forces that propel us to do something we otherwise would not. Incentive theory is the basic principle behind marketing. A good marketing strategy will cause you to want something you neither have nor think you need. You expect that by having this “thing,” you will be better off than you are without it (Beckmann & Heckhausen, 2008). It’s like those catalogs that fall out of your mailbox during the holiday season and the emails that clutter up your inbox offering unbelievable “deals.” Retailers are hoping that you will go after the products that they put out in front of you. Similarly, grocery, convenience, and large-scale retail clothing stores place their little but often expensive temptations where they are bound to have the most impact– namely, while you’re waiting to check out. An item that you would have given no thought to now becomes a handy little impulse purchase that you toss into your bag or cart. Adding to the draw of the impulse purchase is the fact that you may feel you deserve a treat, having practiced extreme self-restraint throughout the rest of your shopping expedition (a phenomenon called “ego depletion”).
Why #4: Incentive Theory. Our behavior may also be determined by forces that propel us to do something we otherwise would not. Incentive theory is the basic principle behind marketing. A good marketing strategy will cause you to want something you neither have nor think you need. You expect that by having this “thing,” you will be better off than you are without it (Beckmann & Heckhausen, 2008). It’s like those catalogs that fall out of your mailbox during the holiday season and the emails that clutter up your inbox offering unbelievable “deals.” Retailers are hoping that you will go after the products that they put out in front of you. Similarly, grocery, convenience, and large-scale retail clothing stores place their little but often expensive temptations where they are bound to have the most impact– namely, while you’re waiting to check out. An item that you would have given no thought to now becomes a handy little impulse purchase that you toss into your bag or cart. Adding to the draw of the impulse purchase is the fact that you may feel you deserve a treat, having practiced extreme self-restraint throughout the rest of your shopping expedition (a phenomenon called “ego depletion”).
Why #5: Cognitive Theory. Moving from simple conditioning to the realm of behavior controlled by thoughts, the cognitive theory of motivation proposes that our expectations guide our behavior. You’ll behave in ways that you think will produce a desirable outcome. Cognitive theory, the creation of University of Rochester psychologists Ed Deci and Richard Ryan, proposed that we have two types of motivation: Intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation is what drives us to fulfill our inner potential and interests. Your intrinsic motivation is your desire to express your true self in your behavior, whether it’s work or leisure. What’s more, when you are driven by intrinsic motivation, you feel that you are determining the outcomes of your efforts. Extrinsic motivation, by contrast, is your desire to achieve tangible rewards such as money or the glory that come with status and recognition. Deci and Ryan developed the counter-intuitive proposal that people who receive extrinsic rewards for behaviors that they find intrinsically satisfying become less creative and productive. This has the picturesque name of “motivational crowding out.” The extrinsic rewards of money, fame, and recognition crowd out the intrinsic satisfaction that you experience from doing something because you really like to do it. The motivational crowding out idea has some obvious flaws. Managers could use this theory to pay workers less or deny them promotions. “Why should we pay you more (or at all)?” You’ll be less creative and productive! This problem led to a revision in the theory which is called …
Why #6: Self-Determination Theory. With the obvious flaw in cognitive theory, it became clear that work motivation needs to incorporate both intrinsic and extrinsic sources of motivation. Deci and Ryan therefore revised their theory. Self-determination theory proposes that you can have a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation driving your work-related and other behavior. The most satisfying activities you can engage in, the ones that will motivate you the most, are those that allow you to feel most in control of your behavior. You can be motivated by the mundane satisfaction provided by extrinsic rewards. However, the more autonomy you feel, the more self-directed you’ll be, and the most satisfied you’ll be in your work, as suggested by research on college alums who felt they were fulfilling their intrinsic needs (Niemiec et al, 2009). Being able to express your inner motives and get paid at the same time is a hard combination to beat. The problem for many people is that they feel that their work behavior is controlled by factors outside of their own inner self-determination. It’s that feeling of external control that leads to job discontent and stagnation. The remedy to this problem is to find ways to express your autonomy, even if it’s only in a few minor ways.
Why #7: Self-Actualization Theory. At the very pinnacle of motivation, self-actualization theory proposes that we are most motivated to realize our own inner potential. Maslow’s self-actualization theory is one of the most recognizable topics in psychology, but also one of the least well-tested and least well-understood. According to Maslow, self-actualization is the true realization of your inner potential, whatever that is. Self-actualization is not a state of complete perfection. Maslow’s very lofty definition proposed that self-actualization is a continual process of becoming. The hierarchy of motives for which Maslow became famous proposed that we have lower-order needs (those instincts and drives) and higher-order needs (total self-expression). After you satisfy your lower-order needs, says the theory, you can self-actualize. This idea might be wrongly translated into the expression “A hungry poet cannot write.” However, as we all know, hungry poets do write. In fact, many people will set aside physical needs, safety, and even positive regard from others in order to fulfill their highest-order needs. To many Steve Jobs was just such a man. Maslow actually proposed that, in fact, many of the people he considered self-actualized had given up their lower-order needs for safety, security, and even love, to realize their innermost passions. According to Maslow, very few people achieve this nirvana, and when they do, they’re typically in their middle or later years.
Now that you’ve seen the range of motivation theories, you’ve probably been able to pick out parts of each that apply to you either now or at some point in your past. By recognizing that your behavior reflects these many complex pieces, you can move on to developing your own unique path to change. Whether it’s arousal, incentive, self-determination, or self-actualization, understanding the motivation behind your behavior can give you the insights you need to develop your own unique pathway to fulfillment.
Follow me on Twitter @swhitbo for daily updates on psychology, health, and aging and please check out my website, www.searchforfulfillment.com where you can get additional information, self-tests, and links.
Copyright 2011 Susan Krauss Whitbourne Ph.D.
Resource:
Feldman, R.S. (2011). Understanding psychology (10e). New York: McGraw-Hill (an excellent overview of the above theories).
Read more here about SDT’s extensive empirical support and the response to criticisms from behaviorists and others.
References:
Beckmann, J., & Heckhausen, H. (2008). Motivation as a function of expectancy and incentive. In J. Heckhausen, H. Heckhausen, J. Heckhausen, H. Heckhausen (Eds.) , Motivation and action (2nd ed.) (pp. 99-136). New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499821.006
Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The path taken: Consequences of attaining intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations in post-college life. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 291-306. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.09.001
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (2007). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. In D. Smith, M. Bar-Eli, D. Smith, M. Bar-Eli (Eds.) , Essential readings in sport and exercise psychology (pp. 13-22). Champaign, IL US: Human Kinetics
“Even if there is nothing to laugh about, laugh on credit.” Anon
There are so many benefits to laughing – it really is worthwhile experimenting with new ways to have a laugh. This is a topic we will return to in the future but in the meantime here is a great article for you to read by Pallab Ghosh, the BBC’s science correspondent, about the medical benefits of laughter.
There is also a link to a brilliant Channel 4 documentary by filmmaker Mira Nair – a great introduction to a group of people in India who take the business of laughing very seriously. If you have any suggestions or stories about bringing more laughter to your life please share them. Go on have a laugh…..
By Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News
People feel less pain after a good laugh, because it may cause the body to release chemicals that act as a natural painkiller, research has suggested.
The researchers at the University of Oxford also think the ability to belly laugh was unique to early humans.
This, they believe, enabled our ancestors to form much larger tribal groupings than the ape-like species that lived alongside them.
The research is published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The experimenters first tested the pain thresholds of volunteers.
They were then split into two groups, with one being shown 15 minutes of comedy videos, while the other was shown material the researchers deemed boring – such as golfing programmes.
The researchers found that those subjects that had recently experienced belly laughs were able to withstand up to 10% more pain than they had done before watching the videos.
To their surprise, the scientists also found that the other group was less able to bear pain after watching 15 minutes of the “boring” programmes.
Situation comedies
The type of laughter was also important. Tittering and giggling did not elicit any physiological effect; only a good guffaw did the job.
Professor Robin Dunbar of Oxford University, who led the research, believes that uncontrollable laughter releases chemicals called endorphins into the body which, as well as generating mild euphoria, also dull pain.
“It’s the emptying of the lungs that causes [this effect],” he told BBC News.
“It’s exactly what happens when we say ‘I laughed until it hurt’. It seems to be extremely painful and it’s that pain that produces the endorphin effect.”
However, not all the comedy programmes were able to hit the spot, according to Prof Dunbar.
Slapstick humour seemed to score highly whereas clever stand-up comedy routines, though found to be enjoyable, had no effect on raising pain thresholds.
“I hesitate to say this but we did have one series with [British stand-up comic] Michael McIntyre and we thought he’d go down really well – but it seemed like his humour was too cerebral to produce serious guffaws,” Prof Dunbar explained.
“Things that worked very well were slapstick comedies such as Mr Bean.
“Situation comedies such as Friends also seemed to be particularly successful.”
Spinal Tap
The researchers were not able to measure endorphin levels directly because that would have involved extracting fluid from the volunteers’ spines using a long needle – a process which, Prof Dunbar concedes, would quickly take the smile off their faces and possibly influence the results.
Instead, the researchers took what they referred to as a proxy measurement, which tested the pain threshold for each volunteer.
This involved, for example, placing a bag of ice on their arms to see how long they could withstand it.
The greater the increase in pain threshold, the greater the amount of endorphins produced.
The aim of Prof Dunbar’s study is not to develop a new treatment.
Instead, it is to explore the role of laughter in the establishment of human societies two million years ago.
All apes are capable of laughter, but it is only humans that are able to belly laugh and so release endorphins.
Prof Dunbar’s theory is that as well as dulling pain, endorphins also make people more susceptible to developing bonds.
“Laughter struck us as such an odd thing,” he said.
“We spend so much of our time in conversations trying to elicit laughter and laughing ourselves [so] it looked like the first port of call.
“At this point what we’re trying to show is, yes you do get endorphin activation.
“The next stage will be to see whether laughing really allows groups to bond together and work as a group better and act more generously towards each other.”
If that is the case, then it may explain why some two million years ago, the first humans were able to form large tribal communities of up to 100 – whereas other apes and ape-like creatures that existed at the time were only able to form communities of up to 50.
This theory creates the scenario of our ancestors sharing laughter around the fire, possibly the emergence of the first clowns, clubbing each other for comic effect.
Follow Pallab on Twitter
Article published on 14th September 2011 in BBC News, Science and Environment
The Laughing Club of India
Academy Award and BAFTA-nominated director Mira Nair’s (Salaam Bombay! , Monsoon Wedding) Laughing Club of India is a film that explores the power of laughter through the strangely popular phenomenon of laughing clubs in contemporary Bombay.
Founded in 1995, by medical doctor Madan Kataria, with just five people, today the movement has over 6,000 clubs in 60 countries. These clubs bring hundreds of people together, beyond caste or class, to laugh for 40 minutes each day.
Watch this wonderful Channel 4 documentary about The Laughing Club of India
Posted by Shona Lockhart, 7th June 2012
Making Positive Psychology Wiser
“Psychology without philosophy is blind, Philosophy without psychology is empty” (James Hume)
There’s a possibility that the 21st century could be the century when we finally get to understand more about how to lead happier, more fulfilling lives. Compared to our ancestors of just a century ago we enjoy better health, greater material riches and have a richer understanding of psychological problems such as depression and anxiety. But are we happier or more fulfilled? Perhaps not. As the French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said “Everything has been figured out except how to live.”
There’s at least one reason for thinking that things might change for the better. Since 1998 American psychologist Martin Seligman has led the “Positive Psychology” movement which aims to put human well-being on a scientific footing. It has already uncovered some surprising facts , such as
Happier people are more creative, live longer and are more altruistic than unhappy people
Optimists have less heart attacks than pessimists
Moreover Positive Psychology has developed simple practices which are statistically proven to increase happiness for most people. One of the easiest and most effective is the “Three Good Things in Life Exercise”.
Each night for one week, write down three things that went well that day.
In addition to writing three things that went well, provide a causal explanation for each thing.
In particular, try to pay attention to how your behaviour caused the positive thing.
You might like to try it. Most people find there are lasting benefits of doing it for just one week. Governments are beginning to take notice of Positive Psychology. Whilst Bhutan, a tiny nation in the Himalayas, has been using a National Happiness Index for years, other countries such as the UK have more recently supported the idea that National Happiness should be measured. Initiatives to enable children to develop important life skills such as optimism and self-control have been piloted in schools. In addition there are many books describing scientifically supported ways you can become happier, some of which are rather good.
The idea behind Positive Psychology is important and timely. When I run workshops in Positive Psychology , most students enjoy the classes and find that practicing its ideas on themselves makes them happier. In my life coaching and psychotherapy practice I routinely incorporate Positive Psychology techniques and have found them to be a useful addition to the therapist’s toolkit.
However, much as I enthuse about Positive Psychology, I fear that unless it broadens it perspective it will not fulfill its potential to bring about a fundamental transformation in human well-being this century. I will put my cards on the table straight away. I believe that psychology needs to be combined with philosophy. Science can help us understand and reliably change the world but it cannot tell us what to change. As author Jules Evans argues, “Philosophy ungrounded in social science is a brain in a vat. But social science unguided by ethical philosophy is a chicken without a head. “
It is to ethical philosophy we must turn if we want to reason about such questions as “What is the good life?”, “What is human flourishing?” and “How important is happiness?” . A lot of books on Positive Psychology focus on happiness and how to be happier. Yet a few moments reflection is enough to convince most people that happiness isn’t all there is to a good life. Would you want your tombstone just to say that you were happy? Many people agree with psychologist Joseph Ciarrochi who says:
” I think I want my tombstone to say something about me being a loving father, caring husband and someone who sought to improve this human condition. I bet you…have similar hopes and values”.
But if human flourishing isn’t just happiness, then what is it? Positive Psychology’s leading theorist, Martin Seligman, has proposed the idea that flourishing has five components, captured by the acronym PERMA, meaning:
Is wisdom, the ability to make ethical choices in the face of complex practical and emotional situations, a particularly important value?
These are all good questions. The answers implied by Seligman ( “Don’t know”, “No”, “You just have to think you have them satisfied” and “Wisdom is just one of 24 strengths and you should focus on it only if it is one of your strengths”) are not very satisfactory.
These are not technical quibbles, these are fundamental issues. If Positive Psychology is going to guide us in our personal lives and public policy, it needs to have a solid conceptual basis. We need to be able to trust it. Yet Seligman himself has admitted that Osama Bin Laden could well have lived a PERMA life. Since PERMA is measured by the subject’s own estimate (see question 3 above) every psychopath, terrorist and criminal could be rated to have good lives according to positive psychology. Worse still, positive psychology’s methods could actually make them worse. Would you prefer your local criminals to be more or less motivated, more or less optimistic? Like nuclear fission, Positive Psychology’s tools can be used in the pursuit of good and evil..
The idea that you should transform human well-being without doing philosophy as well as psychology is too narrow. But Seligman’s own model of Positive Psychology also runs into more specific problems because it ignores key ideas commonplace to philosophers but less obvious to psychologists. Central to Seligman’s theory is the idea that we should all be more aware of our character strengths and use our strengths more often. But should we? Imagine that your next door neighbour, Fred has optimism as his top strength. Positive Psychology tells him to be optimistic in new situations. Suppose Fred’s optimism has so far worked very well for him at home, where his encouragement and positivity are greatly appreciated by his family. After reading Seligman, Fred decides to be more optimistic at work as well. Now cut to the day of your holiday. Unfortunately it’s extremely foggy. You arrive at the airport expecting a long delay to your flight. You are surprised to hear a familiar “How is it going?” from Fred, your optimistic neighbour, who – I forgot to mention – is an airline pilot and is due to fly your plane. “How long will the delay be?” you ask him anxiously. “No delay at all!”, he replies cheerily. “Today I’m going to practice my optimism strength a bit more. Air Traffic Control say we should wait an hour for the fog to clear, but the good news is I’m an optimist so I’m going to ignore them.”? The problem with Seligman’s strengths theory is we have to judge when and where to apply our strengths. Fred needs what philosophers have long recognised to be a key virtue – wisdom.
Many centuries ago, Plato, Aristotle and other ancient philosophers argued that wisdom was in fact the most important thing you need to live well. Without wisdom, all the other things in life could be misused. Money, good looks and health may seem to be good things, but to live well you have to know how to use them wisely. In our example, Fred’s lack of practical wisdom will him lead to use his optimism strength rashly. One of the most influential philosophers on the subject, Aristotle, argued that a wise choice involves choosing the golden mean between two extremes. Fred needs to find the golden mean between optimism and pessimism . In this situation, since there is so much to lose, he should err on the side of pessimism.
What can be done? Positive Psychology has great potential, but for it to be fulfilled it needs to take on a more philosophical perspective. My hope is that more philosophers become involved in Positive Psychology and more psychologists become involved in Practical Philosophy.. I would like them to work together to develop a multi-disciplinary approach to the question of how to increase well- being.
In the meantime, I suggest the interested reader combine their study of positive psychology with practical philosophy. A good place to start are two excellent recent books
Jules Evans’ Philosophy For Life and Other Dangerous Situations
Julian Baggini & Antonia Macaro’s The Shrink and the Sage.
I also would like to invite interested parties to contact me to help develop a more philosophical type of Positive Psychology. It’s a project I’ve already begun, and I will leave you with one – so far untested – practice, a philosophical version of Three Good Things, which I call “Three Wise Things.”
Each night for one week, write down three ways in which you or someone you know acted wisely that day. The things don’t have exhibit the wisdom of King Solomon – they just have to be things where someone showed good judgement.
In addition to writing down three wise things, write down what made these actions wise?
Live happily and wisely
Tim LeBon
http://www.timlebon.com
