"lower cognitive functioning [..] was linked to [..] loneliness, depression, inactivity and obesity"
In short, this is a lifestyle issue of their own making. In my area, housing prices are high and rental apartments are sparse, because we have lots of villas with garden that would be large enough to comfortably fit a family with 3+ kids but are instead occupied by one lonely old person.
It would be much better, both for the elderly and for the younger generation, if they'd move to communal living or rent out their unused space to a family. That would make it less lonely plus they are helping those people indirectly paying for their retirement (by generating value for those companies that retirement funds buy stocks of).
But it appears that nostalgia and vanity get in the way.
If my dad[0] did that, he'd have to meet other people, and he hates that. He's very happy on his own. I tried convincing him to move to an apartment closer to us, but he prefers to stay in the town he's lived in for the past 50 years. It's where his chess club is.
[0] quintessential baby boomer, though the article incorrectly tries to label him a war baby
I believe that many people making such a decision don't know or do not consider the effects that isolation will have on their brain. That's why I believe there should be more discussion about the side effects of such a decision.
But if people knowingly accept that, I see nothing wrong with it. My grandma also was the same. But she kind of compensated for the loneliness at home by being super active in an outdoor hiking club.
Apartment life is absolutely terrible. Noisy neighbors, inappropriate management, etc. In my opinion apartments are very much for those who cannot afford homes. When you own your own property you have so much more freedom.
David Brooks wrote a great piece on the pretty disastrous consequences of the American nuclear family[1]. It's primarily concerned with the socio-economic aspect of it, that is to say the erosion of a communal safety net and support in particular among the working class, but I think this also applies to the baby boomer generation here.
> In short, this is a lifestyle issue of their own making.
Wow, this is such a superficial analysis. The article was clear that this was also linked to wealth: wealthy people were not affected.
We're talking about large scale societal trends. Can you explain why, in a certain period of time, millions of people just decided to create lifestyle issues of their own making? What makes these people different from previous generations? How can we not talk about the overall economy, for example?
The way I read it, wealth didn't make it worse, while poverty did.
But the issue of being lonely and that causing psychological issues is also affecting the wealthy. In fact, I would guess that many of the villa owners in my area are wealthy.
And surely people wanting to stay in the house that they grew up in is a lifestyle choice. What makes them different from previous generations is that they can afford to make this choice. Their parents probably had to live with family for financial or cultural reasons.
So I stand by my summary: people are making decisions with unexpected side effects.
> Their parents probably had to live with family for financial or cultural reasons.
Not sure there's any evidence of this. The article is talking about people in their 50s and 60s, not "the elderly" you referred to in your original tweet. My (pre-Boom) grandparents were certainly not living with their parents when they were in their 50s or 60s (or indeed at any age after adulthood).
> "Findings showed that average cognition scores of adults aged 50 and older increased from generation to generation, beginning with the greatest generation (born 1890-1923) and peaking among war babies (born 1942-1947). Scores began to decline in the early baby boomers (born 1948-1953) and decreased further in the mid baby boomers (born 1954-1959)."
Wait what? 1946 is the defining year of the Baby Boom, and now people born in that year don't even count as baby boomers anymore?
I'm always a bit baffled when I see people born in the late 1950s or even the 1960s counted as baby boomers, but to see people from the actual defining year of the baby boom not counted as baby boomers is bizarre.
My parents were both born in 1946 as part of the baby boom. They are not war babies. Their parents (my grandparents) all married after the war. They are the quintessential baby boomers, and this study starts out by classifying them as something else.
I originally wanted to make a joke about the title (cue Millennials: "we knew it!"), but if your study hinges on misclassifying the group you're claiming to study, I find it hard to take the study very seriously.
When I conquer the world, I'm going to make June 2 a global holiday in honour of Clair Patterson. Despite his not being a medical professional, he's easily on par with Jonas Salk, Ignaz Semmelweis, Joseph Lister, and other more famous medical revolutionaries in terms of his contribution to public health.
16 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 40.7 ms ] threadIn short, this is a lifestyle issue of their own making. In my area, housing prices are high and rental apartments are sparse, because we have lots of villas with garden that would be large enough to comfortably fit a family with 3+ kids but are instead occupied by one lonely old person.
It would be much better, both for the elderly and for the younger generation, if they'd move to communal living or rent out their unused space to a family. That would make it less lonely plus they are helping those people indirectly paying for their retirement (by generating value for those companies that retirement funds buy stocks of).
But it appears that nostalgia and vanity get in the way.
[0] quintessential baby boomer, though the article incorrectly tries to label him a war baby
But if people knowingly accept that, I see nothing wrong with it. My grandma also was the same. But she kind of compensated for the loneliness at home by being super active in an outdoor hiking club.
[1]https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/03/the-nuc...
Wow, this is such a superficial analysis. The article was clear that this was also linked to wealth: wealthy people were not affected.
We're talking about large scale societal trends. Can you explain why, in a certain period of time, millions of people just decided to create lifestyle issues of their own making? What makes these people different from previous generations? How can we not talk about the overall economy, for example?
But the issue of being lonely and that causing psychological issues is also affecting the wealthy. In fact, I would guess that many of the villa owners in my area are wealthy.
And surely people wanting to stay in the house that they grew up in is a lifestyle choice. What makes them different from previous generations is that they can afford to make this choice. Their parents probably had to live with family for financial or cultural reasons.
So I stand by my summary: people are making decisions with unexpected side effects.
Not sure there's any evidence of this. The article is talking about people in their 50s and 60s, not "the elderly" you referred to in your original tweet. My (pre-Boom) grandparents were certainly not living with their parents when they were in their 50s or 60s (or indeed at any age after adulthood).
Wait what? 1946 is the defining year of the Baby Boom, and now people born in that year don't even count as baby boomers anymore?
I'm always a bit baffled when I see people born in the late 1950s or even the 1960s counted as baby boomers, but to see people from the actual defining year of the baby boom not counted as baby boomers is bizarre.
My parents were both born in 1946 as part of the baby boom. They are not war babies. Their parents (my grandparents) all married after the war. They are the quintessential baby boomers, and this study starts out by classifying them as something else.
I originally wanted to make a joke about the title (cue Millennials: "we knew it!"), but if your study hinges on misclassifying the group you're claiming to study, I find it hard to take the study very seriously.
And so there is always bias present in "research" conducted by left leaning sources.