U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2016, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,726,438 times
Reputation: 32304

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by choff5 View Post
Several years ago I was able to visit with the woman who lived across the road from me when I was growing up. At that time she was 102 and she lived to 103 I think. She lived in a nursing home and had just seen the beautician that morning so hair, nails, complete with earrings were all in place, and it wasn't because of my visit as she didn't know I was coming. I asked her what was the secret to long life. Her answer, "work, lots of it". It was true. When I was little she was the truant officer for our county (I never missed school!). Prior to that when she finished school she borrowed $300 and went to a teaching college, she taught in a one room school until she married. She then drove a school bus and later help run the local grocery store. Later in life she was the hostess at a restaurant in town then later worked as the bailiff in the court. She always drove a red car. I hope I can half her energy as I age.
One can scarcely fail to note that all of her many jobs were pretty social in nature. She was interacting with other people. So, was it the "work" per se which contributed to her longevity, or the social interactions which her work provided?

Interesting story, by the way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2016, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,726,438 times
Reputation: 32304
Quote:
Originally Posted by crusinsusan View Post
I really do hate it when a study says it's findings are about everybody, when it's not. Like when they did studies and excluded blacks. 10 to 1 they used only white men.

"a research project that since 1938 has closely tracked and examined the lives of more than 700 men and in some cases their spouses."

Science has been eliminating females since before this study started in the 1930s. The researchers, and the reporters should have made it clear that the findings are for men. They later tagged on the spouses of the original male sample.

It's an important thing to know, and be careful about, when looking at what research is being presented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crusinsusan View Post
Actually, this study applies only to white, heterosexual men, from Boston born long, long ago.

While I do wish the general public (ie: we posters here on CD) were more aware of such data skewing, I blame the researchers. Not the OP here. Just sayin'
It's certainly good to note the demographics of any study. However the findings about the men from Boston are similar to findings of any number of other studies about isolation versus social interactions as we age. In a broad sense, the conclusion has been around for more than a decade. For example see "Younger Next Year" by Crowley and Lodge which came out in 2004.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 12:57 AM
 
729 posts, read 320,665 times
Reputation: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
Not everyone is social. I think the key is to live within your means, and to try to be content with what you have.
Agreed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 06:19 AM
 
12,686 posts, read 14,068,003 times
Reputation: 34762
Quote:
Originally Posted by crusinsusan View Post
Actually, this study applies only to white, heterosexual men, from Boston born long, long ago.

While I do wish the general public (ie: we posters here on CD) were more aware of such data skewing, I blame the researchers. Not the OP here. Just sayin'
After looking at the article and going the study's site, the limitations of the study are quite clear, yes.

As I've gotten older I have also become more aware of other, perhaps less obvious, limitations in many sociological studies. We read that "people are...." and "more people...." this than that. And then you read the study, and its not "people" in the most general sense, but rather a selection of people living in a particular culture with a particular cultural heritage.

And I have to wonder if the study's "people are..." would hold up in India, China, Yemen, Mali and so on. I am inclined to think if we read about "A study conducted at X university in India on urban residents in ten cities showed that people are...." that we would very quickly say: "Right, Indian people." But I wonder, do we do the same "Whoa!" with studies produced within our own country that proceed to tell us what people do or think.

I am not at all against sociological or anthropological studies, and the results may, indeed, have wide application...but I think we need to be more careful and consciously question what we are reading...not necessarily with a mind to reject it, but to understand it better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 06:23 AM
 
12,686 posts, read 14,068,003 times
Reputation: 34762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
One can scarcely fail to note that all of her many jobs were pretty social in nature. She was interacting with other people. So, was it the "work" per se which contributed to her longevity, or the social interactions which her work provided?

Interesting story, by the way.
Or did she just have great genetics and live a very healthy life style? And you see some centenarians attributing their unusual age to drinking a pinch of hooch a day.

I have caught myself making highly selective generalizations about myself that are absurd simplifications of complex influences and conditions.

Last edited by kevxu; 03-24-2016 at 06:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 06:24 AM
 
Location: Central NY
4,655 posts, read 3,237,575 times
Reputation: 11912
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
Not everyone is social. I think the key is to live within your means, and to try to be content with what you have.
I totally agree with the above. I do not have a lot, or certainly not as much as some who post here, but the true wealth comes from feeling content and peaceful on the inside. Money will never buy that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 06:26 AM
 
10,321 posts, read 9,372,412 times
Reputation: 15911
I never take everything I read as the gospel truth, some of the so-called experts just need something to write about to earn a paycheck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 06:41 AM
 
Location: Orlando
1,983 posts, read 2,633,656 times
Reputation: 7538
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
Not everyone is social. I think the key is to live within your means, and to try to be content with what you have.
This.

My mantra is "Learn to want what you already have." I'm still working on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 07:40 AM
 
Location: delaware
688 posts, read 863,966 times
Reputation: 2367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
But you have to start somewhere. Give an acquaintance time and a chance in a year you may end up with a real friend.




some people are satisfied with a full calendar of social activities- exercise class, day trips ,bridge, tennis/golf, travel, volunteering ,etc. while I feel if you are a social person, these are important ways in which to connect, keep busy (if this is important to you ), and for some people this kind of activity based life equals happiness, or close enough. I have a neighbor/friend for whom this kind of life probably translates into happiness, and if this suits her, and she can maintain a "happy" life in this way, that's good for her.


but, one size does not fit all in this area, and although I enjoy some activities and have many friends/acquaintances as a result, this kind of connecting/interacting would never fill a deeper need in me for connection on a more substantive ,meaningful level, at least as I define it. and I realize that there are some people who really don't want or need this kind of relating.


so,yes i'd miss some of the activities I have if I didn't have them, but do any of them, by themselves, equal happiness for me? I don't think so; I would always need a more intimate connection in order to have a "happy life", and even that term i feel is an oversimplification of the basic life experience of most people.


catsy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2016, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Close to an earthquake
890 posts, read 676,616 times
Reputation: 2390
The sooner we realize that "wherever I go there I am" truth, the sooner we'll find joy in wherever we are and wherever we go regardless of who are social contacts are or whether or not our pockets are lined with gold.

Ditto for regardless of whoever is our next President.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top