Low social status 'can damage immune system' | Hacker News Reader

Low social status 'can damage immune system'

bbc.com

203 pointshappy-go-lucky66 comments

This is well known. Relative social status has an influence on health. Above survival level, it's healthier to be at the top of a poor culture than at the bottom of a rich one, even if the absolute level is lower.

> it's healthier to be at the top of a poor culture than at the bottom of a rich one, even if the absolute level is lower

That Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect is seen to be relevant in a lot of places, including academic performance [1][2], depression, and suicide rates.

[1] http://aer.sagepub.com/content/47/2/390.abstract

[2] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-008-9075-6

I commented on this in a recent thread and was crucified for being a self centered sociopath... better luck to you.

Heh. I think think the sociopathic conclusion would be to claw one's way to the top no matter what. The compassionate conclusion would be to reduce inequality, so all benefit.

Unless you can reduce inequality to zero - Harrison Bergeron style [1] - you can't fix this by reducing inequality. It's an ironclad law of mathematics that 20% of the population will be part of the bottom fifth.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

I believe the level of inequality, and the level of social mobility (which is probably related to the magnitude of inequality), is more important than the existence of inequality.

Are you aware of any academic literature on the subject?

It's not my area, but putting some keywords in Google Scholar yielded some results pretty quickly. E.g. this paper

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504850701720197

"We investigate the relationship between inequality and intergenerational mobility. Proxying fathers' earnings with using detailed occupational data, we find that sons who grew up in countries that were more unequal in the 1970s were less likely to have experienced social mobility by the late-1990s."

This article is about one of the mechanisms, which wasn't well known.

We know there's a bunch of reasons why poor people are unhealthy - more smoking, more alcohol, worse food, less exercise, more dangerous jobs, less protection in those dangerous jobs, less exercise, less access to health treatment (even if it's free).

But this study:

> The findings, in Science, had nothing to do with the unhealthy behaviours that are more common in poorer groups.

Don't forget the oft-overlooked poor stress coping mechanisms and the associated psychological and personality disorders; and "privilege deficits" such the lack of healthy social support systems, the inability to build healthy relationships that increase knowledge, self-awareness, and expand skills that promote personal, social and economic growth.

> Above survival level, it's healthier to be at the top of a poor culture than at the bottom of a rich one, even if the absolute level is lower.

This does not apply to Switzerland and the Nordic European countries. (It does clearly apply to the US, though.)

>This is well known. Relative social status has an influence on health.

You mean outside of health choices made for financial reasons? That was news to me. Simply being in bottom hurts you, even if you are doing everything else the same.

Has anyone else here ever read Keith Johnstone's 'Impro'? Coming from the world of theater, Johnstone has a facinating perspective on the malleability of social status.

Can you give a brief summary of the points he makes about social status? I'm curious but my reading backlog is already out of hand.

I was wondering if anyone had ideas on hacking social status for your own benefit :)

Disrupt Society 2016

Wear a suit?

I have noticed a lot of engineers speak very quickly because you are in a hurry and flit between points (ie. Elon Musk) this is a specific kind if social status projection. Another way is to change how you dress. Another way is how you carry your body. Interesting how much people use these signaling queues to categorise each other.

Go sigma.

brief summary, improvisational acting is a lot funnier when the social status between the actors is toyed with. Keith finds it is surprisingly liberating and easy to fake a social status with certain body language, etc. When playing low status people clammed up or stammered and said less, high status they were energetic and took up more space. The audience likes when the dynamics change gradually.

Yes but I'll need to borrow Kahneman's system1 system2 model of human behavior. System1 impulsive default mode of the great average human intelligence. System2 the more resource intensive and introspective mode. Essentially the day to day activity of your average patch of humans is made mostly System1 behavior. Unfortunately when actors seek to emulate or broadcast average culture via System2 it leads to an unrealistic effect. The solution is to learn to skillfully use your System1 when broadcasting culture, but it can be tricky because of its spontaneous nature. Johnstone and 'Impro' are a one of a kind glimpse into a master's perspective on the nature of spontaneity, which happens to be among many other things absolutely status oriented. And as such Johnstone reflects deeply on his life time of knowledge acquired exploring the spectrum of the status scales.

Aha! This makes lots of sense to me.

Whenever I'm watching a movie with good actors, even though I know they are acting it's easy to let myself go and be absorbed by the story. They make it seem so easy (as most top professionals do) that sometimes I even start to think "acting can't be that hard!, I mean, you just have to reeeeally believe you are the character".

However in a low-budget movie, which usually has less skilled actors, you can definitely see this "System2-trying-to-fake-System1" behavior. This is also quite probably what would happen if someone filmed me trying to act, but I never found an explanation for why this happened.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll definitely give it a go. It does look like a very interesting insight into human behavior.

Some of the specific ideas for demonstrating high status included not moving your head when speaking, speaking and moving slowly, beginning statements with a long 'uhhhh' (a short 'uh' sound, however, demonstrated low status), and taking up space.

I'd recommend moving it to the top of your reading list; it's one of those incredible books that i get something new out of every time I read it. It goes deep into human interaction, learning and education, consciousness - so much of what it means to be human.

If you go from low to high most of it comes naturally. It's obliquely alluded to in pg's "You Weren't Meant to Have a Boss"[0].

[0] http://www.paulgraham.com/boss.html

Wow, that's a good essay. pg wanted to be a philosopher earlier in his life. He would have been good at it, but unfortunately I think the field is beneath him.

> Some of the specific ideas for demonstrating high status included not moving your head when speaking, speaking and moving slowly, beginning statements with a long 'uhhhh' (a short 'uh' sound, however, demonstrated low status), and taking up space.

I hope this knowledge (regardless of whether it's true) does not spread - I'm sure there would be plenty of people who will try to "hack the system" and will act according to this list, which would be insufferable.

That happened at least 10 years ago with the publication of The Game [1] and the emergence of the pickup community [2].

And if you want to know how insufferable it's been, just ask any woman who's been in the dating scene in the past 10 years how they feel about 'negging'.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game:_Penetrating_the_Secr...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_community

I'm more of a relationship kind a guy, but let me tell you if you workout women are no saints either. Women 'negg' as well and use very brash language of your body parts and what they would do with you.

>That happened at least 10 years ago with the publication of The Game

Despite what you may feel about pickup artists, The Game is genuinely worth a read.

The trick is not to read it as a "how to meet girls" manual.

What's most interesting about it is the behaviour of them belies their own insecurity and an uncomfortableness around women. The book itself alludes to this.

Wouldn't it be better if those hacking techniques are more commonly known, making it harder to measure a stranger's social status, so we treat everyone equally?

This will not solve the root problem of the existence of social ladder, but I don't see how spreading this knowledge can cause harm.

Let me try to move it up your backlog. Impro is one of 10 books I keep around on a permanent basis. I've been reading it for a couple of years now, and I'm not done yet. This isn't because it's a large book. Indeed, it weighs in at a slim 200 pages. I'm not done yet because after I read a chapter I can't bear to move forward, and I spend the next few months looking at the world around me with new eyes.

Other commenters here allude to the value of status in improvisational comedy. This isn't all the book is about. It is a window into human nature in general.

> The newest member nearly always ended up at the bottom of the social order and became "chronically stressed", received less grooming and more harassment from the other monkeys.

> A detailed analysis of the monkeys' blood showed 1,600 differences in the activity levels of genes involved in running the immune system between those at the top and bottom.

Could it be that the grooming procedure itself helps with the immune system? For example, cats will often lick their fur, which could bring in small quantities of pathogens to help build an immunity. If something similar happens with the monkeys, the result might not generalize to humans.

> Dr Snyder-Mackler said: "Status is always relative, but if we could flatten the slope so the differences between the highest and lowest weren't as much, or find ways to focus attention on lower social environments so they are not as 'crappy' we could mediate some of those consequences.

It's fine for the doctor to have his own political philosophy and motivations to do this study, but I would wait for a biologist to do a more careful analysis of why those genes are being activated before using this to justify any political action.

Certainly, if every conceivable biological variable except for feeling like you're at the bottom is accounted for and the effect remains, that would be a very interesting result.

"I would wait for a biologist to do a more careful analysis of why those genes are being activated before using this to justify any political action."

Already done.

I refer to the "Dunedin Study", (Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study). [0] Read the summaries of how this was/is being conducted. The most revealing insight into the links between poverty, disease and mortality. People born into poverty and who increase their wealth considerably in later life, do not get healthier.

Disease (damage to the immune system) is directly related to poverty.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_Multidisciplinary_Heal...

[1] http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz and http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/publications

I'm not able to speak to the statistical validity of the test, but as a software developer I find it more convincing if there's an explicit causal connection.

Like, "Poor people live in darker homes, and the photosensitive ganglion cells are connected to the part of the brain that controls melanin production. And this triggers a sleep response more often, which causes the immune system to behave in X, Y, and Z".

How does a statistician make a decision about what to change given only statistical data? It seems very mysterious to me. I understand how to interpret a scientific result(give people brighter homes), but not a statistical one.

Causality is extremely difficult to prove in all sorts of reasonable circumstances, much less the Rube Goldberg mess of horrible chemistry that is the human corpus.

(See also for example Judea Pearl's work http://causality.cs.ucla.edu/blog/ )

"I'm not able to speak to the statistical validity of the test, but as a software developer I find it more convincing if there's an explicit causal connection."

@Michael, biology is messy compared to machines. To judge a measure of certainty in the methodology and results, read the peer-reviewed papers submitted to scientists working in this and other fields ~ http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/publications

I'm skimming through the study, thanks to Sci-Hub. The researchers did account for the impact of grooming and harassement on the immune system.

We next investigated the behavioral mechanisms that give rise to social status effects on gene expression, focusing on NK and helper T cells where the observed effects were strongest. Mediation analysis revealed that rates of received harassment—a measure of the agonistic, competitive element of social status inequality— contributed to these effects for 17.3% (helper T) and 7.8% (NK) of rank-responsive genes, respectively. However, in rhesus macaques, dominance rank also influences affiliative social interactions (15). Grooming rates mediated rank effects on gene expression levels for 17.6% of genes in helper T cells, comparable to the results for agonistic interactions. In contrast, grooming behavior was more important than harassment for rankresponsive NK genes (n = 560 genes, 33.4% of all rank-responsivegenes; chi-squared test P = 1.33 × 10e−74)(Fig. 2, D and E). A lack of positive social interactions may therefore be equally or more important than social subordination per se in shaping social status effects on gene expression, consistent with the known effects of social integration on health and mortality in both humans and other primates (16–18).

As with many things, this is also more complex. This article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303694650_Primate_r... suggests that higher status animal in this particular group have a higher parasite burden.

Nietszche says to measure one's strength by the number of parasites one can support.

"It is not impossible to imagine society so conscious of its power that it could allow itself the noblest luxury available to it, – that of letting its malefactors go unpunished. ‘What do I care about my parasites’, it could say, ‘let them live and flourish: I am strong enough for all that!’ . . . Justice, which began by saying ‘Everything can be paid off, everything must be paid off ’, ends by turning a blind eye and letting off those unable to pay, – it ends, like every good thing on earth, by sublimating itself. The self-sublimation of justice: we know what a nice name it gives itself – mercy; it remains, of course, the prerogative of the most powerful man, better still, his way of being beyond the law." -- Genealogy of Morals, 2nd Essay, Chapter 10

"In the spot where the strong are weak, where the noble are over tender, there the parasite builds its horrid nest; dwelling in the sick corners of the great man . . . and it is just the highest species that harbors the greatest number of parasites." -- Thus Spake Zarathustra, Part 3, Section 56: "On Old and New Tablets", Number 19

He's talking about Basic Income y'all.

Maybe. The funny thing is that, as is always the case, other interpretation it's possible too: only societies with excedents can afford super rich.

Low status is stressful. And so is high status.

The suggestion is more high status -> more exposure to any parasite whose transmission isn't environmentally mediated.

Forced, involuntary low status is stressful.

Opting out and just not giving a four letter word does not have to be.

I enjoy my stress with sauna, massages and whine.

I've always thought about this the other way around. When I feel sick or depressed I tend to drop out of society for a bit.

This was my initial thought too, and I haven't read the full text, but from the abstract it seems they demonstrate causality in the other direction.

It's probably both ways. I think it can even lead to a self-reinforcing spiral.

Being too rich can give you gout.

We all got problems.

Some people on a high-protein diet get this. The usual solution is to make sure you're eating enough fat and veggies.

That's right, I have become more intent to have disease when not social at all. Beccause nowadays, it's more difficult to commuincate with people with others in real life, talking and interacting on internet can do much help.

directly related:

Stress, Portrait of a Killer - Full Documentary (2008)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYG0ZuTv5rs

It studies this in humans and other primates.

High social status = Highly unethical http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086

But is it necessarily a bad thing? It seems like a way for nature to filter out less competitive genetic material. There are always going to be hierarchies and there will always be people at the bottom. It's an inherent part of how matter organises itself.

The human side of your comment aside, it isn't absolute. So it may 'filter out more competitive genetic material,' from the bottom of more competitive pools than the 'less competitive material' at the top of worse performing pools.

Logical fallacy. Social status ≠ genetics. Social status is unfortunately often determined by income, race, religion, and a host of other nonlogical designations.

In this experiment, social status was determined by "newness" to the group. Nothing to do with genetics.

But if social status has an impact on sexual selection or individual survival then it does have something to do with genetics. It's a selective pressure meaning that genetics will likely drift in that direction.

Social status is determined by social status of forebears, intelligence, physical attractiveness, good health.

These are all heritable. This is not a matter of (formal) logic (so stop throwing 'fallacy' around); it's genetics.

You can't just name a fallacy from the wiki 'List of Fallacies' and try and win an argument.

Social status in humans and other animals is a large part genetic. This is take as fact by many people. If you believe it's not you really need proof.

The original OP didn't need to provide proof as they took it as a given and was talking a different interesting premise.

Trolling HN is really low status, though.

Well, we also organize the systems that organize people into hierarchies, and our normative choices are just as "natural." And, to continue this kind of thinking, the mushroom clouds of the next nuclear war will also be nature's means of expression, as was slavery, and also the emancipation of slaves.

Given how seniority (older being more dominant) was supposedly the major predictor to dominance ranking, it doesn't seem as if the macaque's ranking criterion reflected any kind of genetic fitness.

Simple solution; Give a separate country to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_minority

Reply on news.ycombinator.com