Anyone else feel like the statistic that not having many close relationships being linked to dementia is kinda silly?

[marina's diamond]

Don't get me wrong, I'd pick having friends over not having them, but I feel like that statistic is a sort of fear mongering tactic used to drive people to change themselves just to BE in a relationship. I've pretty much gone my whole life without having a "best friend," and yeah, it has hurt, and it definitely has led to some insecurities, but I don't think not having a best friend was necessarily the cause of whatever cognitive dissonance I live through now. I feel like more of my negative self talk and self-image came from negative experiences from past friendships, rather than being alone. Instead I feel like being alone sort of amplified the residual pain from those experiences. I dunno, I could be talking total nonsense but it just seems a bit farfetched. Dementia, probably not. Loneliness leading to insecurity seems at least somewhat more reasonable. Let me know your thoughts, because I'd much rather live on my own and have the liberty of being authentic then live in a relationship built on a fabricated foundation.

 

[charlotte craig]

Don't think it is silly because we need mental stimulation and you get that through chatting to people. I can think of people I know got dementia who sat watching television all day every day and am sure them not seeing o ther people contrib uted to it. But if you have a busy job , lots of hobbies, etc, you regularly use your brain to learn new things, that all comes into it too. Simply socialising is not enough.

 

[Kar]

It's poor data modeling. Other bad examples:
* A glass of wine a day is good for your heart
* daily green tea consumption was linked to lower risk of death from heart disease

These are examples of causation fallacy. The point is there is a correlation (both sets of data tread similarly) but correlation does not imply causation. There are other factors like people who drink green tea regularly might also have an overall healthier lifestyle so it isn't the green tea that resulted from lower risk of heart disease but the overall lifestyle they lead of which drinking green tea was an example. Similarly, they can't determine causation from the correlation of not having many friends resulting in dementia.

 

[marina's diamond]

It's poor data modeling. Other bad examples:
* A glass of wine a day is good for your heart
* daily green tea consumption was linked to lower risk of death from heart disease

These are examples of causation fallacy. The point is there is a correlation (both sets of data tread similarly) but correlation does not imply causation. There are other factors like people who drink green tea regularly might also have an overall healthier lifestyle so it isn't the green tea that resulted from lower risk of heart disease but the overall lifestyle they lead of which drinking green tea was an example. Similarly, they can't determine causation from the correlation of not having many friends resulting in dementia.

Yeah, this is what it looked like to me. It sounds like what the studies were trying to say is that the majority of those dementia victims lacked close relationships. But I just find it a bit silly to think that the lack of those close relationships are a direct cause/contributor of dementia.

 

[user 135067]

Statistics are cherry picked. Use what supports the result you want.

Did you know that people over 5'4" are more likely to get hit by lightning?

It's not because of their height. It's because most lightning strike victims are adults.

For my take, dementia seems to be a failure of the system of memory that powers recall. It's all still there, it's just not being retrieved. To me that suggests chemistry and/or oxygen. Not stroke type oxygen loss. More of a kink in a hose sort of reduction.

I don't think I'm off base to say most victims of dementia have family. Did the study suggest how many friends one must visit everyday to stay off dementia? Yeah, I thought not.

Memory is a complicated process. When you store a memory you store colors, time, smells, feelings, sounds, and a lot more, each of them placed onto a separate shelf with a catalogue number* that is associated with its other elements. When any part of the memory fails the entire memory becomes harder to retrieve. It's there, but for whatever reason it just can't be reached. The memory becomes dim.

*The brain likely does not use catalogue numbers... unless you are Stephen King, e.g. Dream Catcher.

 

[Finished]

I do not socialize in real life. When I talk to people in real life for more then just a minute or so I get a headache and very tired. IMO, our brains are like our muscles. If you don't use them, you loose them. I have a feeling the socialization part of my brain has already shrunken and will continue to do so. It may even atrophy and die eventually. I will probably get dementia because of it. Some already think I have it. But, what were we talking about again? Ha! ha!

 

[user 148069]

nevermind, I regret sharing my opinions...

 

[SquareBin]

I actually do believe dementia happens partially due to lack of contacts with people. Misery in general messes up most of the body and mind, so I'd easily believe that loneliness (indirectly) causes cancer or other...

 

[bsomberg]

It's poor data modeling. Other bad examples:
* A glass of wine a day is good for your heart
* daily green tea consumption was linked to lower risk of death from heart disease

These are examples of causation fallacy. The point is there is a correlation (both sets of data tread similarly) but correlation does not imply causation. There are other factors like people who drink green tea regularly might also have an overall healthier lifestyle so it isn't the green tea that resulted from lower risk of heart disease but the overall lifestyle they lead of which drinking green tea was an example. Similarly, they can't determine causation from the correlation of not having many friends resulting in dementia.

I believe you are oversimplifying a bit. You are right that correlation does not imply causation and, as you say, there are many examples of spurious connections. However, that does not mean it is not a useful measure to help understand the problem. Obviously the experiment where you randomly assign people to be either lonely or not lonely is impossible and will never happen. But neither have people been randomly assigned to be cigarette smokers or not, yet the evidence is pretty strong that smoking leads to cancer. The research on the link between loneliness and dementia is pretty robust and is bolstered by several other factors: animal studies which show the connection, the existence of mechanisms within the body that could lead to such a result, the number and quality of studies showing the result, the lack of other plausible explanation for the results, control of intervening variables, and so forth. I don't like the results either and got pretty depressed when I read a story in the paper the other day about the health effects of loneliness, but science is science whether we like it or not. Of course, the findings did not say that loneliness leads inexorably to dementia, so we just have to heed the warning and do what we can to protect ourselves.

 

[blackdot]

The people that I have known that ended up with dementia were very popular around people so I don't see the link.

I think there is more a link with dementia and getting old.

 

[bsomberg]

The people that I have known that ended up with dementia were very popular around people so I don't see the link.

I think there is more a link with dementia and getting old.

There is definitely a link between getting old, but the fact that you know a few popular people with dementia is irrelevant. The studies do not say that loneliness is the only factor, just that it is a contributing factor. Non-smokers can get lung cancer, but that doesn't mean that cigarettes don't lead to cancer.

 

[TropicalStarfish]

I can't prove it, there may be studies to support it; but, I think chronic stress and social isolation, simply cause brain atrophy. I've been in contact with at least two people who supposedly had, 'dementia.' But, I could understand them perfectly fine. The staff responsible for their care, and people's general ignorance, indifference, and ambivalence is what struck me most odd.

But, with the brain, if you don't lose it, ya lose it. I've usually always tried to keep up with social stuff. Chat rooms, forums, writing, radio, etc.. Just something to stay connected in some way. *sigh*

Chronic stress, though, I think, is probably more harmful than smoking. I'd bet money on it.

 

[SquareBin]

I can't prove it, there may be studies to support it; but, I think chronic stress and social isolation, simply cause brain atrophy. I've been in contact with at least two people who supposedly had, 'dementia.' But, I could understand them perfectly fine. The staff responsible for their care, and people's general ignorance, indifference, and ambivalence is what struck me most odd.

But, with the brain, if you don't lose it, ya lose it. I've usually always tried to keep up with social stuff. Chat rooms, forums, writing, radio, etc.. Just something to stay connected in some way. *sigh*

Chronic stress, though, I think, is probably more harmful than smoking. I'd bet money on it.

100% agree

 

[SherryGee]

I think dementia are most likely to be genetic.
My nan got dementia, she was very social and outgoing. Her mum had dementia and also social person.
Last year, I found out I have dementia gene and I'm not a social person.

 

[NoxApex(N/A)]

The way that modern scientific survey and essay reporting is done is bad and isn't the full study.
If the media is trying to sell a narrative, what they will do is that they will take multiple surveys and essays, and tailor them to what narrative they're trying to sell, rather than the entirety of the truth of the matter.
The reason why this is done is because that's how journalists and reporters make their money.
It's clickbait.
Literally no different than some Enquirer or Star magazine front cover bullshit.
If you really want to get into the actual statistical research, you've gotta be willing to get your hands and arms dirty with the grease of the engine of it.
You've really gotta get in there and pool your own research and development yourself.
It's a pain in the ass, yes, but if it actually means something to you beyond face value, than that is what should be done.

There are also more contributing factors, such as diet and exercise, any and all pre-existing conditions, and the amount of time spent with things that cater towards dopamine addiction. The dopamine addiction thing is a huge factor. Because excessive amounts of dopamine diminish the attention span over a long enough time via neurotransmitters and neurochemistry. Depression, also being neurochemically affective, would also fall within the margins of neurochemistry and pre-existing conditions, as well as perhaps any medication someone is taking.

Brain is kind of called "The Black Box," and it's nicknamed that because it really is that complex of a thing to try to study. While there's some definite relativity to the physical sciences of the brain and its organic functionality, what we call The Mind, that is, the personal inorganic attachment that we have, the more emotional toolset and cognitive toolset parts of our personalities, is well, inorganic. Therefore, treatment of The Brain and treatment of The Mind are different. Similarly related, yes, however, golden rule of basic entry-level college psychology classes is: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. They will browbeat that into you.

 

[bsomberg]

The way that modern scientific survey and essay reporting is done is bad and isn't the full study.
If the media is trying to sell a narrative, what they will do is that they will take multiple surveys and essays, and tailor them to what narrative they're trying to sell, rather than the entirety of the truth of the matter.
The reason why this is done is because that's how journalists and reporters make their money.
It's clickbait.
Literally no different than some Enquirer or Star magazine front cover bullshit.
If you really want to get into the actual statistical research, you've gotta be willing to get your hands and arms dirty with the grease of the engine of it.
You've really gotta get in there and pool your own research and development yourself.
It's a pain in the ass, yes, but if it actually means something to you beyond face value, than that is what should be done.

There are also more contributing factors, such as diet and exercise, any and all pre-existing conditions, and the amount of time spent with things that cater towards dopamine addiction. The dopamine addiction thing is a huge factor. Because excessive amounts of dopamine diminish the attention span over a long enough time via neurotransmitters and neurochemistry. Depression, also being neurochemically affective, would also fall within the margins of neurochemistry and pre-existing conditions, as well as perhaps any medication someone is taking.

Brain is kind of called "The Black Box," and it's nicknamed that because it really is that complex of a thing to try to study. While there's some definite relativity to the physical sciences of the brain and its organic functionality, what we call The Mind, that is, the personal inorganic attachment that we have, the more emotional toolset and cognitive toolset parts of our personalities, is well, inorganic. Therefore, treatment of The Brain and treatment of The Mind are different. Similarly related, yes, however, golden rule of basic entry-level college psychology classes is: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. They will browbeat that into you.

I agree with you that the media often does a very poor job at presenting the results of scientific studies. They tend to oversimplify things and often fail to add cautionary notes about over-interpreting results. Clearly at times they are blinded by their own biases and agenda. You are also correct that most things have multiple causes and it is dangerous to try to attribute an effect to a single factor. And, no, correlation doesn’t not imply causation, but it is an important research tool. Please see my earlier comments for more detail. However, in this case it seems that the relationship between loneliness and dementia has been carefully studied and there are good meta-analyses that demonstrate the robustness of the effect over multiple studies. Certainly it is not the only factor; maybe not even the most important factor. But to dismiss the findings because they make us uncomfortable or because they don’t fit our own agenda makes us no better than the journalists about whom we complain.