NY Times: Happiness catching
Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ]
16 Sep 2009, 8:13 am
A good article from the NY Times about how behaviors and emotions are transferred through networks. Essentially they are quantifying the effect of peer pressure and conformity (in its more positive manifestation).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magaz ... =1&_r=1&em
Some key findings:
Quote:
By analyzing the Framingham data, Christakis and Fowler say, they have for the first time found some solid basis for a potentially powerful theory in epidemiology: that good behaviors — like quitting smoking or staying slender or being happy — pass from friend to friend almost as if they were contagious viruses. The Framingham participants, the data suggested, influenced one another’s health just by socializing. And the same was true of bad behaviors — clusters of friends appeared to “infect” each other with obesity, unhappiness and smoking. Staying healthy isn’t just a matter of your genes and your diet, it seems. Good health is also a product, in part, of your sheer proximity to other healthy people.
Quote:
And the social effect appeared to be quite powerful. When a Framingham resident became obese, his or her friends were 57 percent more likely to become obese, too. Even more astonishing to Christakis and Fowler was the fact that the effect didn’t stop there. In fact, it appeared to skip links. A Framingham resident was roughly 20 percent more likely to become obese if the friend of a friend became obese — even if the connecting friend didn’t put on a single pound. Indeed, a person’s risk of obesity went up about 10 percent even if a friend of a friend of a friend gained weight.
Quote:
) Instead, Christakis and Fowler hypothesize that these behaviors spread partly through the subconscious social signals that we pick up from those around us, which serve as cues to what is considered normal behavior. Scientists have been documenting this phenomenon; for example, experiments have shown that if a person is seated next to someone who’s eating more, he will eat more, too, unwittingly calibrating his sense of what constitutes a normal meal. Christakis and Fowler suspect that as friends around us become heavier, we gradually change our mental picture of what “obese” looks like and give ourselves tacit permission to add pounds. With happiness, the two argue that the contagion may be even more deeply subconscious: the spread of good or bad feelings, they say, might be driven partly by “mirror neurons” in the brain that automatically mimic what we see in the faces of those around us — which is why looking at photographs of smiling people can itself often lift your mood.
Quote:
The subconscious nature of emotional mirroring might explain one of the more curious findings in their research: If you want to be happy, what’s most important is to have lots of friends. Historically, we have often thought that having a small cluster of tight, long-term friends is crucial to being happy. But Christakis and Fowler found that the happiest people in Framingham were those who had the most connections, even if the relationships weren’t necessarily deep ones.
There are some criticisms of the work: mostly it failed to completely remove the effects of environment and homophily (similar people grouping together). The researchers' reply was:
Quote:
Their other finding is more intriguing and arguably more significant: They discovered that behaviors appear to spread differently depending on the type of friendship that exists between two people. In the Framingham study, people were asked to name a close friend. But the friendships weren’t always symmetrical. Though Steven might designate Peter as his friend, Peter might not think of Steven the same way; he might never designate Steven as a friend. Christakis and Fowler found that this “directionality” mattered greatly. According to their data, if Steven becomes obese, it has no effect on Peter at all, because he doesn’t think of Steven as a close friend. In contrast, if Peter gains weight, then Steven’s risk of obesity rises by almost 100 percent. And if the two men regard each other as mutual friends, the effect is huge — either one gaining weight almost triples the other’s risk. In Framingham, Christakis and Fowler found this directionality effect even among people who lived and worked very close to each other. And that, they argue, means it can’t be the environment that is making people in Framingham fatter, since the environment ought to affect each of these friends equally.
They did some computer modeling and found:
Quote:
Bahr also found that the obesity epidemic could be reversed quickly, with only 1 percent of the entire population losing weight, so long as the dieters were placed in precisely the right spots. “You don’t need a lot of people, but you do need the right ones,” he said.
That is if you can get the right people (the super-connected ones) affected then it will spread through the network effect and peer pressure.
Some talk on how connectedness is possibly partially genetic:
Quote:
There’s also compelling evidence in their research that we do not have as much control as we might think we do over the way we’re linked to other people: our location in a social network, say, or how many of our friends know each other. These patterns in our life are relatively stable, and they might, weirdly, be partly innate.
Christakis and Fowler first noticed this effect when they examined their happiness data. They discovered that people who were deeply enmeshed in friendship circles were usually much happier than “isolates,” those with few ties. But if an isolate did manage to find happiness, she did not suddenly develop more ties and migrate to a position where she was more tightly connected to others. The reverse was also true: if a well-connected person became unhappy, he didn’t lose his ties and become an isolate. Your level of connectedness appears to be more persistent than even your overall temperament. “If you picked up someone who’s well connected and dropped them into another network, they’d migrate toward the center,” Christakis said. Your place in the network affects your happiness, in other words, but your happiness doesn’t affect your place in the network.
Christakis and Fowler first noticed this effect when they examined their happiness data. They discovered that people who were deeply enmeshed in friendship circles were usually much happier than “isolates,” those with few ties. But if an isolate did manage to find happiness, she did not suddenly develop more ties and migrate to a position where she was more tightly connected to others. The reverse was also true: if a well-connected person became unhappy, he didn’t lose his ties and become an isolate. Your level of connectedness appears to be more persistent than even your overall temperament. “If you picked up someone who’s well connected and dropped them into another network, they’d migrate toward the center,” Christakis said. Your place in the network affects your happiness, in other words, but your happiness doesn’t affect your place in the network.
Quote:
By and large, the people who were most tightly clustered in Framingham tended to be better off — healthier, happier and even wealthier. (Several other economic studies have also found that better-connected people make more money.) But if half the reason these people were so well positioned is related to the accident of DNA, then you could consider connectedness a new form of inequality: lucky and unlucky cards, dealt out at birth.
16 Sep 2009, 6:52 pm
The genetic business seems directly related to autism. One characteristic of autism is very low social intelligence. NTs are born with varying quantities of social intelligence. With help, social intelligence can be increased, but by how much? Social intelligence is needed for networking. Highly socially intelligent people have the largest networks.
In short, the article is picking up the effects of social intelligence on network size.
_________________
"Asperge" is French for "asparagus". Therefore, I think I'm asparagus.
17 Sep 2009, 5:12 am
WoodenNickel wrote:
The genetic business seems directly related to autism. One characteristic of autism is very low social intelligence. NTs are born with varying quantities of social intelligence. With help, social intelligence can be increased, but by how much? Social intelligence is needed for networking. Highly socially intelligent people have the largest networks.
In short, the article is picking up the effects of social intelligence on network size.
In short, the article is picking up the effects of social intelligence on network size.
A large part of it is social intelligence. However it is also about one's (may be genetic?) preference for "mingling". It is possible to be highly socially intelligent and yet at the same time, prefer to spend a lot of your time alone.
I also have to wonder about the highly influential "trend setters". The mention of the "mirroring effect" as the basis of conformism is something that sounds right for the vast majority of people. However if everyone tries to mirror each other, who sets the shifts in trends? If everyone tried to conform no-one will be willing to go out in the front and lead. I wonder if the "mirroring" neurons are *weaker* in the "trend setters". So trend setters ie. those who end up leading groups are those with the uncommon mixture of high social intelligence and a non-conformist nature. Which makes me think that you don't necessarily need to conform to be popular. To be more precise the "usual" rule is you need to conform and blend in with the group. However for a certain select subset of people with very high social skills, being non-conformist increases their popularity. May be because most people don't want to take the lead so feel enormous sense of relief that someone who seems competent is taking the lead. That is social skills is not necessarily just about conforming.
I'm a big fan of Survivor (it teaches me a lot about social dynamics!). One of the "rules" of Survivor is to try not to be a leader because people resent being ordered about and to try to "conform" and not stand out (sounds familiar?). However some of the winners were the active leaders of their tribe. The difference between them and those who tried to lead but got voted out were that the winners were highly socially intelligent as well. For fellow Survivor fans, I'm thinking of Richard and Brian (as the "evil" winning leaders) and Yul, Tom and J.T (as the "nice" winning leaders).
18 Sep 2009, 4:21 am
AnnieK wrote:
A good article from the NY Times about how behaviors and emotions are transferred through networks. Essentially they are quantifying the effect of peer pressure and conformity (in its more positive manifestation).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magaz ... =1&_r=1&em
Some key findings:
There are some criticisms of the work: mostly it failed to completely remove the effects of environment and homophily (similar people grouping together). The researchers' reply was:
They did some computer modeling and found:
That is if you can get the right people (the super-connected ones) affected then it will spread through the network effect and peer pressure.
Some talk on how connectedness is possibly partially genetic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magaz ... =1&_r=1&em
Some key findings:
Quote:
By analyzing the Framingham data, Christakis and Fowler say, they have for the first time found some solid basis for a potentially powerful theory in epidemiology: that good behaviors — like quitting smoking or staying slender or being happy — pass from friend to friend almost as if they were contagious viruses. The Framingham participants, the data suggested, influenced one another’s health just by socializing. And the same was true of bad behaviors — clusters of friends appeared to “infect” each other with obesity, unhappiness and smoking. Staying healthy isn’t just a matter of your genes and your diet, it seems. Good health is also a product, in part, of your sheer proximity to other healthy people.
Quote:
And the social effect appeared to be quite powerful. When a Framingham resident became obese, his or her friends were 57 percent more likely to become obese, too. Even more astonishing to Christakis and Fowler was the fact that the effect didn’t stop there. In fact, it appeared to skip links. A Framingham resident was roughly 20 percent more likely to become obese if the friend of a friend became obese — even if the connecting friend didn’t put on a single pound. Indeed, a person’s risk of obesity went up about 10 percent even if a friend of a friend of a friend gained weight.
Quote:
) Instead, Christakis and Fowler hypothesize that these behaviors spread partly through the subconscious social signals that we pick up from those around us, which serve as cues to what is considered normal behavior. Scientists have been documenting this phenomenon; for example, experiments have shown that if a person is seated next to someone who’s eating more, he will eat more, too, unwittingly calibrating his sense of what constitutes a normal meal. Christakis and Fowler suspect that as friends around us become heavier, we gradually change our mental picture of what “obese” looks like and give ourselves tacit permission to add pounds. With happiness, the two argue that the contagion may be even more deeply subconscious: the spread of good or bad feelings, they say, might be driven partly by “mirror neurons” in the brain that automatically mimic what we see in the faces of those around us — which is why looking at photographs of smiling people can itself often lift your mood.
Quote:
The subconscious nature of emotional mirroring might explain one of the more curious findings in their research: If you want to be happy, what’s most important is to have lots of friends. Historically, we have often thought that having a small cluster of tight, long-term friends is crucial to being happy. But Christakis and Fowler found that the happiest people in Framingham were those who had the most connections, even if the relationships weren’t necessarily deep ones.
There are some criticisms of the work: mostly it failed to completely remove the effects of environment and homophily (similar people grouping together). The researchers' reply was:
Quote:
Their other finding is more intriguing and arguably more significant: They discovered that behaviors appear to spread differently depending on the type of friendship that exists between two people. In the Framingham study, people were asked to name a close friend. But the friendships weren’t always symmetrical. Though Steven might designate Peter as his friend, Peter might not think of Steven the same way; he might never designate Steven as a friend. Christakis and Fowler found that this “directionality” mattered greatly. According to their data, if Steven becomes obese, it has no effect on Peter at all, because he doesn’t think of Steven as a close friend. In contrast, if Peter gains weight, then Steven’s risk of obesity rises by almost 100 percent. And if the two men regard each other as mutual friends, the effect is huge — either one gaining weight almost triples the other’s risk. In Framingham, Christakis and Fowler found this directionality effect even among people who lived and worked very close to each other. And that, they argue, means it can’t be the environment that is making people in Framingham fatter, since the environment ought to affect each of these friends equally.
They did some computer modeling and found:
Quote:
Bahr also found that the obesity epidemic could be reversed quickly, with only 1 percent of the entire population losing weight, so long as the dieters were placed in precisely the right spots. “You don’t need a lot of people, but you do need the right ones,” he said.
That is if you can get the right people (the super-connected ones) affected then it will spread through the network effect and peer pressure.
Some talk on how connectedness is possibly partially genetic:
Quote:
There’s also compelling evidence in their research that we do not have as much control as we might think we do over the way we’re linked to other people: our location in a social network, say, or how many of our friends know each other. These patterns in our life are relatively stable, and they might, weirdly, be partly innate.
Christakis and Fowler first noticed this effect when they examined their happiness data. They discovered that people who were deeply enmeshed in friendship circles were usually much happier than “isolates,” those with few ties. But if an isolate did manage to find happiness, she did not suddenly develop more ties and migrate to a position where she was more tightly connected to others. The reverse was also true: if a well-connected person became unhappy, he didn’t lose his ties and become an isolate. Your level of connectedness appears to be more persistent than even your overall temperament. “If you picked up someone who’s well connected and dropped them into another network, they’d migrate toward the center,” Christakis said. Your place in the network affects your happiness, in other words, but your happiness doesn’t affect your place in the network.
Christakis and Fowler first noticed this effect when they examined their happiness data. They discovered that people who were deeply enmeshed in friendship circles were usually much happier than “isolates,” those with few ties. But if an isolate did manage to find happiness, she did not suddenly develop more ties and migrate to a position where she was more tightly connected to others. The reverse was also true: if a well-connected person became unhappy, he didn’t lose his ties and become an isolate. Your level of connectedness appears to be more persistent than even your overall temperament. “If you picked up someone who’s well connected and dropped them into another network, they’d migrate toward the center,” Christakis said. Your place in the network affects your happiness, in other words, but your happiness doesn’t affect your place in the network.
Quote:
By and large, the people who were most tightly clustered in Framingham tended to be better off — healthier, happier and even wealthier. (Several other economic studies have also found that better-connected people make more money.) But if half the reason these people were so well positioned is related to the accident of DNA, then you could consider connectedness a new form of inequality: lucky and unlucky cards, dealt out at birth.
Ah, well, AnnieK, since most of us are socially-clueless Aspies we wouldn't be able to catch the overweight contagion or its flipside - the positive emotional changes. Nor would we tend to be happy as we are always at the periphery of whatever's going on (unless it's my stupid, abusive family always nagging me and saying my Aspie behavior is unacceptable - then I'm on the front page news.)
Page 1 of 1 [ 4 posts ]
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Catching medical leprosy at Highway 80 Rescue Mission. |
12 Dec 2024, 11:57 pm |
| Happiness: Why Purpose Beats Money Every Time |
23 Jan 2025, 9:19 pm |
