The Longevity Project Reflections

My late grandfather’s favorite words to tell his grandchildren were: “Smile. You’ll live longer.” Having heard this my entire life, I was surprised by reading that optimism didn’t directly correlate to health or longevity. Optimism is a concept that is heavily encouraged in today’s world, specifically regarding illness and medical treatment. Many of us have heard accounts of people with cancer or other chronic illness that say the optimism of their loved ones, as well as their own good attitudes, helped them through their treatment, etc. After reading this chapter, I have a better understanding of the way that happiness and health are highly correlated but not necessarily predictable of one another. This relationship makes rational sense, but is almost unsettling, as it is so prevalent in society to make us believe that our own optimism can enact greater change in our lives, specifically our health.

Chapter 5 was specifically eye-opening for me in that I would consider myself a “catastrophizer.” Although not to the extent of some of the mentioned Terman participants, I am known by my friends and family to be extremely emotional and dramatic about events/circumstances that others would consider trivial, and I often worry about events long before/after they occur. The authors make a very rational and convincing argument that catastrophizing can be detrimental to one’s health and mortality, but I think this chapter lacks a very important aspect. The important relationships in my life (my boyfriend, my mom, my best friend, etc.) really help ground this catastrophizing aspect of my personality. Previous chapters have outlined the importance of sociability, but I think, especially relating to this topic, deep and emotional relationships are very important. Personally, having these relationships has helped me to understand my catastrophizing for what it is, and given me a reason to better understand and relate to the world around me.

To begin with, I believe that Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 contradict themselves. In Chapter 4, the researchers claim that those that are more optimistic than their somber peers die sooner. Then, in the following chapter, they claim that those that are catastrophizers die sooner. As far as I know, a catastrophizer is far from optimistic. Therefore, shouldn’t they live longer? It seems that their definitions of each personality type vary.

Additionally, their findings were very somber. The idea that those either have anxiety or feel the need to put mind over matter will be punished with early death is sad. My mom always taught me that, with the right attitude, you can overcome any problem whether that be anxiety or a common cold. While I often was sick longer than my friends, I do believe that mind over matter has a positive impact on mental health. Therefore, it is very difficult for me to believe these findings even if they are grounded on evidence.

Something I found very interesting was that people with specific personalities develop various habits. For example, in the novel conscientious individuals tend to live longer because they do more things to protect their health and engage in fewer activities that are risky. The book also explained that some people are biologically predisposed to be more conscientious and healthier (less prone to a whole host of diseases). The book goes further to state that having a conscientious personality leads you into healthier situations and relationships. I found this very interesting because it makes sense that sociable people are more likely to engage in unhealthy behaviors because they may surround themselves with bad influences. One question that I had when reading these chapters was that people who have a combination of a sociable personality and a conscientious personality are they at a advantage or disadvantage when it comes to longevity? 

Before reading these chapters, I had not really considered the importance of conscientiousness in regards to longevity. It makes sense to think that a person who makes conscientious decisions will live a longer, more stable life, but I would have probably guessed that sociability was equally, if not more, important than conscientiousness. I think we grow up hearing so many negative stereotypes about being shy or introverted, that this is why we tend to focus so much on trying to be social and having friends as we grow up. Although both are important, the authors remind me that we must find a balance and that being shy is not necessarily bad nor does it affect longevity as strongly as we are pushed to believe.

I appreciate the three self-assessments the book provides, because they allowed me to put my own behavior and lifestyle into perspective. Being able to answer all these questions about myself and then compute a score to determine my level of emotional sociability, for example, allowed me to consider what I was reading from an entirely different perspective. The authors’ incorporation of these interactive assessments is important because it lets readers know that the concepts they are reading about apply to everyone. Longevity is something that concerns everyone, despite any psychiatric, social or physical differences we may have.

I thought this chapter was interesting because of how it opened and drew the reader in, by telling us that the personality trait, conscientiousness, leads to longevity. Conscientiousness includes being: prudent, sensible, well-organized, responsible, persistent, not being impulsive or carefree. I found carefree to be an interesting trait to not lead to longevity. I originally thought that having a carefree personality could lead to living a longer life, due to living in the present and not having as much stress. I can understand how the other traits lead to longevity.

I agree with all three reasons the authors came up with for why being conscientious may lead to living a longer life. The first reason being that conscientious individuals are more likely to take care of their health and not partake in risky behaviors, such as smoking and drugs. This reason makes sense to me. Being responsible and aware of your bodily state and health will lead to living a healthy lifestyle. For example, conscientious individuals may be more inclined to listen to their doctor’s advice and alter their habits. The second reason for why being conscientious may lead to longevity is due to nurture. Some individuals have genes that make them less prone to disease and illness. These individuals have different chemical levels in the brain, in particular, serotonin. High levels of serotonin leads to less impulsivity. In addition, serotonin is responsible for regulating health relevant processes in the body, such as how much you eat and how well you sleep. The last reason the authors came up with, is that being conscientious leads you to forming healthier relationships. This point I agree with the most from personal experience because when you associate yourself with other conscientious and healthy individuals, you are therefore more likely to be put in healthy situations and develop stable positive relationships.

I think it is important to remember that there are exceptions to these findings, and that humans are plastic creatures that have the ability to adapt and change. Although findings did show that the individuals with high conscientiousness in childhood and were also highly conscientious as adults, lived the longest. The good news is that you can change this about yourself to increase your chances of living a longer life, although it definitely will not happen overnight. You can begin by changing some smaller habits, such as time management and keeping an organized schedule and workspace.

After reading this chapter, I believe that it is not just conscientiousness standing alone that marks longevity, but certain traits and behaviors that interplay in individuals who are conscientious; such as determination, motivation and drive. Individuals with all of these traits are more likely to succeed, land a successful career, and make a decent living. These individuals will consequently be happy because they fulfilled their goals.

The main claim of chapter 2, that prudent, conscientious individuals have longer longevity is not a surprising find to me. As the author puts it, being conscientiousness and prudent means one is persistent, thrifty, detail oriented, and responsible about his or her every thought and move, thus he or she more than likely would not venture to put his or her life or well-being in jeopardy.

I rated one of my closest friends and she came out between 30 and 35 (the range because some of the questions I was either or on). While not clinically diagnosed, she suffers from symptoms of what appear to be depression (though scantly). She at times feels anxious, and to offset these feelings she smokes marijuana (legally in her respective state). Thinking about the longevity study and my friend, though she falls within the middle range for conscientiousness, I cannot help but care for the longevity of my friend I have known since middle school. In chapter 3 it discusses sociability. My friend is a social butterfly of sorts, but since her family most recently moved, she has not made any new friends in the area and, as she explains to me, “is depressed because of it.” Given this personal reason and the information provided in the latter portion of chapter 3, I stand by the importance of social networks and social interactions because healthy interactions can aid in aging and longevity (transitioning into old age and beyond).

In regards to my own longevity, I was pleased to have scored a 40 on the conscientiousness scale myself, that is if I did all of the reverse scoring and calculating correctly. I hope that such a prediction is also relevant to the prospect of my marriage down the road (conscientious people having longer, healthier, happier marriages). Dating may seem hard now, but if these numbers and claims are worth anything to me, it appears I have nothing to worry about.

Chapter 2 went into greater detail on why the best childhood personality predictor of longevity was conscientiousness. Before reading this book, I had never thought that high conscientiousness might be a reason that certain individuals live longer than others. I would have assumed that people who live longer are generally happy people who eat healthy, exercise regularly, were born with good genes, and live in nice areas. I took the first self assessment, and I discovered that I am conscientious. My friend assessed me after I assessed myself and we both came up with the same score: 37. I was not surprised to learn that conscientiousness is also the best predictor of long life when measured in adulthood. This did not surprise me because conscientious people engage in less risky behaviors and overall, they make better decisions. What if a person is very conscientious but was born with bad genes? Is this an exception to the rule? It must be.  While the reading states that conscientious individuals are less likely to get many different diseases, possessing certain disadvantageous biological traits definitely outweigh the benefits of being a conscientious person. I was not surprised to read that unconscientious children can slowly turn into conscientious adults. This fact did not surprise me because as you mature, you are more likely to make smarter decisions.

Chapter 3 discussed the role that sociability plays in longevity. I learned that being too social is not a good thing, and sociable children did not live longer than unsociable children. I was not surprised that scientists outlived the nonscientists. Working in finance for example is a lot more stressful and unstable than working in a laboratory and all of the extra stress is not good for ones health. I was surprised to learn that scientists generally had longer lasting marriages. This was surprising because I think of scientists as somewhat unsociable, awkward people. I also learned that there is a right level of sociability and that it is equally as important to like to be around others as it is for people to like to be around you. I am curious to learn more about why being cheerful is not a factor that contributes to longevity. I feel that it should be because optimistic people are by definition not as negative and therefore should experience less stress than non optimistic, cheerful people.

In Chapter 2, Friedman and Martin discussed how conscientiousness plays a part in longevity of life. After reviewing the research of Terman, the authors discovered a correlation between conscientiousness and length of life. Individuals who were higher in conscientiousness were less likely to suffer from an early death. These people were less likely to engage in risky behavior, such as excessive drinking or doing drugs. Highly conscientiousness individuals also suffered less from chronic diseases and are biologically predisposed to healthier living. The third correlation between high conscientiousness and longevity is healthier relationships and situations. The authors found that individuals who scored higher in conscientiousness, also developed healthier relationships  and found themselves in healthier situations. This being said, conscientiousness can be lost and developed, as an individual ages. But at every point, highly conscientiousness were more likely to live than low conscientiousness individuals.

In Chapter 3, Friedman and Martin bust the myth of sociability equating to longevity of life. More sociable people are tended to be looked at as healthier and would live a longer life. However, this sociability can have a negative effect, if the individual is too sociable. Like less conscientiousness people who were high sociable found themselves in more dangerous environments. Environments where drinking, smoking, and unhealthy behaviors were more encouraged. Less sociable people, also formed better relationships. Rather than having many relationships and friendships, less extroverted individuals formed more meaningful relationships. These connections tended to be healthier and not lead to negative health behaviors.

After reading both of these chapters, I found the results intriguing. I appreciate being able to test my own conscientiousness and sociability, but I wondered how these could actually be changed. Like when the authors states that a person that is highly conscientiousness is more disposed to a healthier life. If that’s that case, how does ones biological makeup change from becoming more conscientiousness? How does one develop more conscientiousness? How do we develop higher emotional sociability and distinguish a negative relationship from a positive one before beginning the relationship? While I believe some of the signs of a positive relationship are clear from the beginning, other signs are not as clear. People are also likely to change, so how can a person that is highly sociable predicted for these changes that could occur to their friends. These changes to a friend could also occur with less sociable people, which I believe would be more detrimental. It would cause more negative effects because the individual will have formed a closer bond to the individual because he or she does not have as many relationships, as a more sociable person. Therefore, I do not completely believe in the sociability chapter, because there are way too many confounding variables between sociability and longevity.

Chapter 2 describes conscientiousness as a critical predictor for longevity. This was a foreseeable finding in my mind, and I’m sure many others were also unsurprised by it. I already anticipated that conscientious individuals would have higher organizational skills, lower risk-taking behavior, and more dependable relationships. All of this was supported by the authors’ findings, and makes complete sense. What I didn’t anticipate was the link between conscientiousness and increased physical health. They discovered that  individuals who scored low on conscientiousness had more serious and chronic health problems, such as diabetes, sciatica, and strokes. Comparatively, individuals with high conscientiousness appear to be predisposed to being healthier, which the authors attribute to higher serotonin levels. The fact that personality traits–even from childhood–can literally be used to predict the length of a person’s life and their overall susceptibility to disease (in a general sense) is shocking to me.

Chapter 3 examined the perplexing relationship between sociability and longevity. The authors initially say that they found no correlation between sociability and life expectancy, which is contrary to what social norms would predict. They cite Dr. Terman’s study, which found that scientists (high conscientiousness, low sociability) reliably lived longer than non-scientists (high sociability). However, this ended up being a result of lifestyle differences rather than sociability scores. For example, very sociable individuals were much more likely than less sociable individuals to frequently drink and smoke. Thus, sociability as a characteristic may not predict longevity, but it does correlate with poorer health choices–and those certainly can predict longevity. On the other hand, social ties are important for well-being so it would make sense that being more social would enhance one’s well-being. They found that this wasn’t necessarily the case, though, and they came to the conclusion that sociability is not as straightforward a variable as anyone would expect.