When researchers from UCLA's Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology and the University of North Carolina examined how positive psychology impacts human gene expression, they found that happiness that came from having a deep sense of purpose and meaning in life had the opposite effect from when it came from consummatory self-gratification. People deriving happiness from the latter, had an adverse expression profile involving high inflammation and low antiviral and antibody gene expression.
"What this study tells us is that doing good and feeling good have very different effects on the human genome, even though they generate similar levels of positive emotion," he said. "Apparently, the human genome is much more sensitive to different ways of achieving happiness than are conscious minds."
Sorry PaulaS, I can't help you with the background behind the photo. Don't tell, but my only skill came in carefully selecting it from Google Images... I don't think my photography or photo shopping skills are anywhere near the equal of the many talented folk that share their efforts on-line elsewhere.
Fascinating article with interesting scientific results in terms of how positive psychology impacts favourably on gene expression.
However I'd question the premise that this positive psychological state relates to the effects of 'helping others'. Eudaemonia is about the realisation of potential, what Maslow and Rogers called 'self actualisation'. And of course altruism and selflessness may play a part in this but I struggle to understand how it's being played out as a key factor.
If that were the case, why do up to 40% of carers experience psychological distress or depression?
Carers have an increased rate of physical health problems with one in five giving up work to care and more than half falling into debt as a result of caring.
If control of your environment and realisation of self potential and self-esteem results in Eudaemonia (as theorists believe), somehow the state of selfless caring and devotion to others when it's imposed rather than selected is incongruent with the results. Or maybe they mean those who 'select' their helping acts rather than have them imposed?
When I read this piece of research, I did wonder how they made the distinction between those living an hedonistic and Eudaimonically orientated life because there's a lot of debate amongst psychologists as to the crudity of applying certain definitions. It cannot be about selfless devotion to others because those who do seem to suffer the most (religious interpretation apart).
I totally accept that those who have managed to achieve a positive, embracing, accepting, self actualised life must have greater physical reserves to preserve their immunity. And maybe those people are less selfish. There is a difference between a 'pleasant life' and a 'meaningful life', the former being dominated by self gratification.
But as a lifetime carer who has suffered the physical and psychological effects of caring, I cannot accept that this state of strengthened gene antibody is related to 'helping people'. As in the example of Mother Theresa. It's too simplistic (but nevertheless a worthwhile and humbling way to live all the same). Maybe it's about choice ultimately.
Thanks for your insights into the research both from your professional and personal experience.
Yes it would be very interesting to know how they distinguished between the two lifestyles for the purpose of this study. I wonder why the UCLA Newsroom article didn't include a link to the paper?
Here's the link to the Steve Cole's Bio and Publications; I couldn't recognise the paper here either...
Some questions that come immediately to mind are (1) whether the 80 research subjects (a small sample in itself) were selected out of a larger group to provide two groups representing the extremes of these lifestyles or whether they better represented the full spectrum you would find in society and (2) how well the subjects matched the general population with respect to age, health, etc.
With respect to your comments about carers, I'd say that I'd expect those in full time care roles to have signs of lowered immunity just from the heavy load that caring for someone that is very dependent on the carer brings. I'd expect that most of those in the study had their "Maslow's hierarchy of needs" satisfied to the extent that they could be altruistic without much impact on their lives, but without more information, that's just a guess on my part. People in 9 to 5 jobs can for the most part forget their jobs outside of working hours and they get weekends and holidays to recharge - not so for full time carers.
This is of course all supposition on my part, not having done any social studies.
In Australia, there is some limited support for carers in that there are public services to provide much needed respite. It is still a huge bargain compared to having the state pick up the full responsibility. It is tough seeing the sacrifices parents make looking after their disabled children, particularly as the parents get more frail. It's also tough seeing situations where young children become carers for their parents, sacrificing their studies and hence their opportunities in life.
You might be interested to know that the current Australian federal government have, with the rare support of the opposition, begun the implementation of a National Disability insurance Scheme. This involved increasing the Medicare tax levy to partially fund the scheme, with the remaining 70% or so of the funding expected to come from general revenue. This rare bipartisanship - with a tax increase non the less, got nary a grumble from the tax payer, which I think at least shows the community recognition of how tough a deal the disabled get in our society.
As much time as I spend at UCLA, I had not seen this article and will have to investigate the source. I know I'm happier when helping others by choice - I'm a hopeless earth mother type - but I think being a caregiver is a very different situation. It is not usually something you can choose to do or walk away from, and it involves emotional issues that aren't at play when you aren't tied to the person or people you are helping the way most caregivers are. It would be interesting to compare those who are caregivers by profession with those who fall into it because of family circumstances. I'm sure the results would be very different for the two groups.
As for the photo, I also wonder if it was photo shopped. I'm always amazed at what others can do with photos, but there are many amazing photos and videos of animals who normally would be enemies taking care of one another.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Distressed
FISH testing and chromosomes for dummies
Lab Visit
GOOD NEWS
Flow cytometry
