I have heard so many times growing up that happiness is good for your health, however in this chapter the Terman study showed that cheerful children were not more likely to live longer. One explanation is that they are more likely to grow up to have risky behaviors and be outlived by the serious children. Why is this? It is surprising because I wouldn’t necessarily associate cheerfulness to risky behaviors. Happiness seems like it should be a good thing because people should enjoy life with people around them; yet people should be responsible for their choices. I might understand why cheerful individuals are more likely to drink alcohol and smoke than serious people, I still believe that being cheerful is good for your health. I am curious how Terman determined his results.
Three characteristics were being considered in this chapter: cheerfulness, optimistic outlook, and serious outlook. Optimism, I agree has its benefits, and I believe that the mind over body is part of that personality. I think that focusing on other things helps to cope with difficult situations. Having a good coping mechanism, I believe, has benefits in the long term because not being able to cope during difficult times can make a person become depressed and lose hope and think that they won’t ever get through that time. I think that it is good to be optimistic and be able to turn any situation into a positive outlook on life.
There are two points I like to make about this chapter as well as previous chapters.. One is that I find that the book sometimes makes contradictory statements. On one hand they say that Terman children who were cheerful were not likely to live longer and that the serious Emma’s of the world outlived the cheery Paul’s of the world. But they also say at the same time that things that lead to happiness often lead to better health and the things that improve health also boost happiness. Some of this seems contradictory. But the other point I’d like to make is that I would like to see more data from the study instead of a few specific examples of people in the study. I know that information about specific people makes more interesting reading but it does less to convince me of the generalizations they are trying to make.