Morbidity Affected by Social Isolation: But Why?
10 Comments, so join the discussion!
Photo by fazen
Patients with small social networks had an elevated risk of mortality, but this greater risk was not attributable to confounding with disease severity, demographics, or psychological distress.
This study raises some interesting points about the social dynamics of humans as a species. Can the state of mind, and therefore the state of the physical body, really be affected by social interaction, and if so, does it go both ways? Is there as much of a benefit to social interaction as there is a consequence?
As I am sure most of you are probably aware, human beings are social creatures. This can be seen in regards to what social norms are and what they have been. It is considered abnormal to withdraw from other people, and we normally refer to those who do as hermits. This is not simply a product of the times either. Over a century ago, in the Victorian Era, social customs were considered extremely important. It didn’t matter so much as to what class you were in, because everyone wanted to seem wealthier and more important than they were. Seashells were proudly displayed on etageres to show off how worldly the family was. These weren’t simply collectibles; these and other similar items were displayed to “keep up with the Joneses”, so to speak. This was a time when calling cards were all the rage, and the elite social groups had a lot of influence.
Sure, social institutions have not gone the wayside, but is the purpose behind these more than just for some benefit to the ego? Yes, and you can even go so far as to use social isolation as a predictor for morbidity. Why exactly does this happen, and why is it so important to be social and not close yourself off?
Social Isolation Kills, But How and Why?
First is the idea that isolation from others is anxiety arousing or stressful in and of itself, producing physiological arousal and changes, which if prolonged, can produce serious morbidity or mortality; and, conversely that affiliation or contact with others reduces or modulates physiological arousal, both, in general and in the presence of stress and other threats to health.
A second hypothesis is that social relationships beneficially affect health, not only because of their supportiveness, but also because of the social control that others exercise over a person, especially by encouraging health-promoting behaviors such as adequate sleep, diet, exercise, and compliance with medical regimes or by discouraging health-damaging behaviors such as smoking, excessive eating, alcohol consumption, or drug abuse.
My opinion is that it is not one or the other, but a combination of both. The moral support given to a person suffering from an illness is second to none. The fact that the same person is doing healthier things as a result of that interaction is an added benefit.
The positive state that this puts the afflicted person in can’t be denied. It has been shown time and time again that simply adjusting your attitude can greatly improve, or destroy, your physical well being.
So, I ask you, what is your opinion on the matter? Is it one of these reasons, or something else entirely?
Maybe this will make you think twice about being rude the next time that urge creeps up! You should be nice to everyone around you, not for their sake, but for your own!
Most Popular Posts
- Unsolicited Criticism: It Stinks And So Do You (28)
- Curing Happiness: What It Means And Why You Need To (20)
- Morbidity Affected by Social Isolation: But Why? (10)
- Raw Foods Diet: Day 21 (9)
- Raw Foods Diet: Day 6 (8)
via RSS
January 20th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I believe this to be very true. Having a strong sense of community and companionship can affect how strongly your body fights disease. Great post!
January 20th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
But why do you think that is the case?
January 21st, 2008 at 10:34 am
Makes you want to go make friends! Thanks for the blog.
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Thanks for the article, very interesting. I like the photo
January 29th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
What this fails to address is that fact that 1/4 of the population are introverts. By our very nature we have small social networks and prefer it that way something most extroverts don’t get.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:42 am
Denyse, I disagree.
While the difference between an introverted personality type and an extroverted one may be large, it isn’t important to this particular study.
Having very little to no social interaction is not normal for an introverted personality type. It is abnormal in the sense that the human being is a social creature, which goes to show why some social interaction is necessary.
This article is not saying that you have to have a lot. In fact, it isn’t even saying that having a lot is beneficial. It is just saying that very little to no social interaction, or social isolation, can have an effect on morbidity.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Chris – interesting take you have on introverts – you confirm my position that extroverts don’t get introverts.
but moving from this point you say the article says there is an elevated risk to mortality – what does that actually mean? What real data is there to support that claim?
Further you or the article go on to say that this increased risk is not related to among other things “psychological distress” but how can anxiety not be considered a form of psychological distress, especially if it resulted in the physiological changes.
on to another point – what about the elevated levels of peace, beingness and awakening that are found in yogis, Buddhist monks and many others -humans who choose to live in isolation and live good long supposedly anxiety free lives. I think it is important to question ALL of our basic beliefs about “human beings.” Is it really that we are ’social’ or is there something underlying this more surface/superficial label that is at the crux of who and what we are?
back to you
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 am
Denyse,
First of all, I’d like to thank you for commenting and bringing your unique perspective to this topic. You must remember that I did not conduct these studies. I merely found the results interesting and interpreted some of the data. I left a large portion of it open, which is why I asked questions.
Secondly, if you think an introverted personality type is someone who lives in complete social isolation, than you are incorrect. No one is a complete extrovert or a complete introvert, rather we adopt different characteristics at different times. There are many different “kinds” of introverts and extroverts, and it is not simply that black and white.
Introverts generally have an inward focus. Introversion in and of itself is defined as: “The direction of or tendency to direct one’s thoughts and feelings toward oneself.” Where do you get the notion that this means an introverted personality type lives in complete social isolation? Prove me wrong here. Unfortunately, just telling me that I am proving your notion that extroverts don’t get introverts is not enough.
If you live in complete social isolation, and I know that you don’t, this would be considered abnormal. Extroverts and introverts may be different, but all humans need social interaction to some degree. This has been proven time and time again.
I think you got a bit confused with the quote about psychological distress. It simply meant that that previous conditions, like a disease (be it mental or physical) was not the cause for the elevated risk of morbidity.
Buddhist monks live in communities. They do not live in social isolation. They live in monasteries. I’m not quite sure I see your point on this one.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
this is interesting. I think that people being social animals need that contact with other people. just being around others and having an avid social life will help ease depression in some cases because theres less time to think about it. also if you are a hypochondriac. your friends would be there to tell you your crazy versus you just thinking yourself sicker and sicker. people need human contact. we evolved as highly social animals, from highly social animals. our closest relatives, the chimps and other great apes are all social and have large social groups that have heirarchy and friendships made. it is rare to see a loner ape and they are much more likely to die young than those who are part of the group. like the beatles sone says”…I get by with a little help from my friends…”. we all need somebody to love.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
the idea of a monk being in social isolation is different though. tyou could say that due to the highly philosophical nature of their self imposed isolation that they are being social with themselves and the universe. they are not talking to others but they are having an inner monologue and if they become enlightened, then they are beyond talking to others, they are really now speaking with the very universe itself in that they are now one with it and dont see themselves as being a lone entity in it. completely different mindset. but that is what i think this is getting at. the mental aspects of health. social isolation can allow the mind to go wild without check from friends and family so things start to become psychosomatic, and you can literally think yourself to death by becoming depressed and having a poor outlook.