Look At Sick People To Give Your Immune System a Boost 271
Scientists at the University of British Columbia have found that looking at someone who appears sick boosts your immune system. Subjects had blood taken before and after watching a 10-minute slide show that contained disturbing images including people who appeared sick. Results of the blood tests showed people who had seen the sick people had a stronger immune system. From the article: "In the study, young adults were asked to watch a 10-minute slide show containing a series of unpleasant photographs. Some pictures included people who looked obviously ill in some way. The subjects' blood samples were then tested for levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), a substance produced by the immune system that indicates your immune system is ramping up to more aggressively fight infection. As a control, pictures of people brandishing guns were also used on some participants—and they barely resulted in a significant increase in IL-6 production, signifying that IL-6 production is not simply a reaction to stress."
Alternate interpretation (Score:5, Funny)
You could look at it that way. Or you could see that the data clearly shows that none of the subjects' had immune systems capable of protecting them from bullets.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or you could see that the data clearly shows that none of the subjects' had immune systems capable of protecting them from bullets.
That's not completely true. The problem is with the visibility of the bullets. At the subjects weren't able to see the bullets in movement, their bullet resistance didn't raise.
To prove that theory we shot them with visible bullets and, as postulated, they were indeed immune.
You can check the results in our full analysis: [i]"Bullet resistance to bullets slowed down to improve their visibility"[/i].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I dunno.. the video of the actual experiment [youtube.com] seems to indicate otherwise.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or perhaps the subjects have seen so much gun-play on TV that seeing guns in pictures no longer evokes a stressful response.
Re: (Score:2)
the data clearly shows that none of the subjects' had immune systems capable of protecting them from bullets
Yes, and also that their immune systems were programmed to already know this...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and they barely resulted in a significant increase in IL-6 production
I'd just like to know how you "barely" have a "significant increase"....
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Erm... there's a significant increase. Only barely, but still significant.
Was that so hard? You read the words, and you understand what they mean.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Security through obscurity. A bullet has to hit certain critical points in order to be fatal. Most of the body is a decoy. And it's covered by an opaque curtain. You have to have specific, inside information about anatomy, or have been clued by experienced hackers, to know where to aim your bullets. But, like all matters of security through obscurity, once the truth is out there it's like no security at all. Even swapping your heart for your brain won't make you more secure.
Re:Alternate interpretation (Score:5, Interesting)
My first thought was that pictures of people brandishing guns are so ubiquitous -- a large portion of the entertainment industry is devoted to exactly that -- that they're not necessarily a source of actual stress in most people. The researchers would have been better off using a loud, unexpected noise (dropping a heavy book on the floor behind the subject has been used in some experiments) or requiring the subjects to complete some arbitrary puzzle with a time limit if they wanted to generate stress in their subjects.
Personally, I'd have used a photo of a client demanding IE6 compatibility for their new web app.
Why do photos of guns cause stress? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't get it. When I see pictures of people with guns, I immediately try to discern the make and model, then go to the internet to get the specs to see if it's something I'd want to buy.
The fact that the majority of the world has denied the human right of self defense to its citizens is the only thing I can think of that would be a cause of stress with respect to guns.
Re: (Score:2)
I would question the mental state of someone who doesn't think having a gun brandished at you with the intent of doing you harm isn't considered a stressful situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should reconsider. Do you understand the difference between:
and
?
The gun can harm you. The photograph cannot, regardless of which direction the gun in the photograph was pointed.
Re: (Score:2)
The gun can harm you. The photograph cannot, regardless of which direction the gun in the photograph was pointed.
While your line of reasoning works, you took it a step too far. Or, better put:
Can photos of illness make you sick, then?
Re: (Score:2)
The first time I saw tubgirl I felt like I was going to be sick. Does that count?
Of course these days I can browse 4chan without feeling anything. Oh, to be innocent again... :D
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think she's at all well, so she'd probably fall under the original set of images, rather than the control.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
FTFY
If you own a gun, you are much more likely to hurt yourself or a loved one accidentally than you are to ever find yourself in a situation where the gun will provide you with any self-defense. I wish people who call themselves "2nd Amendment Advocates" would just admit that the reason they want guns is because it makes them feel l
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
The problem with your position is that your passion has caused you to break the threshold of belief.
You've opened your argument with the inference that 'gun-nuts' are closet homosexuals. If you had evidence to support it, you should have presented such, but as it stands the casual reader will simply dismiss your entire comment as being both sensational and ignorant.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's consumer stress. And it's obviously caused by the photo of the gun.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
An arrow can be used to kill a person or used to hunt or these days more for target practice, much like laser tag. I don't usually get stressed looking at a laser tag gun or any other kind of gun because their common use of that tool in my world, much like British Columbia, is non-lethal.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between fear and respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and guns DO NOT kill people.... it's the person holding the gun that kills people.
sometimes, dogs shoot their owners [google.com].
just sayin...
Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress? (Score:5, Informative)
I enjoy target shooting. I don't even hunt, and have never shot at a live animal or human being before. I bought MY guns for the sole purpose of shooting at cardboard targets. So to be honest, it is YOUR opinion that is twisted - if you think the only purpose for guns is killing or harming other human beings, that says a lot more about your psychological profile than anything. And if you can point to any case where a gun killed somebody by itself, with no additional human interaction, I will eat all of my guns. You see, people kill people. There was murder and violence (and a lot more of it) before there were guns. Given the choice, would you rather be run through by a sword and die slowly, or be shot by a gun and die quickly??
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress? (Score:5, Funny)
My guns are not a deterrent to anyone but cardboard targets.
So, because carboard targets are deemed "acceptable targets", you're just gonna shoot them? 200 years ago, we might be having this conversation about black people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is inferring that the only reason to buy a gun is to kill or maim someone. So yes, technically you didn't say those exact words, but you sure meant them. I use my gun expressly for the purpose that I bought it for - target shooting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, the point of these [raacfirearms.com] are to maim and/or kill people?
No.
A guns entire purpose is to accelerate a projectile. What the purpose of this acceleration is rests entirely upon the user.
Jeez. You don't think the same way about knives do you? Sharp objects? How about rockets? Those do a lot more than make things explode.
Nicely done (Score:3, Insightful)
His comment is the equivalent of saying "the purpose of a car is to take you to work and back home every day."
Sadly, he's just another victim.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't like something, it isn't "practical".
I am glad I live in a country that guarantees me freedom for the pursuit of happiness, and I don't need a "practical" reason to do things. I like to target shoot. Something that makes you happy doesn't need any other pu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really
A gun is just a tool. The purpose relates to the intent of the person with the gun.
My intent with my Glock, and therefore the purpose is self defense from criminals, and wild animals. If you have to go to south Phoenix with a lot of cash, or happen to be walking your dog and happen upon a herd of Javilina in the spring, you'll see what I mean.
My intent with my rifle, and therefore the purpose is recreation. It's fun and challenging to shoot targets 100s of yards away with iron sights.
My father's intent with his rifle is to shoot, and subsequently eat a deer, therefore the purpose is hunting.
A criminal's intent bay be to kill a competitor or rob a store, therefore the purpose is to kill or at least threaten people.
Tools do not have intent; they are inert. It takes a person to bring intent and purpose to the tool.
Re: (Score:2)
My intent with my Glock, and therefore the purpose is self defense from criminals, and wild animals.
And how is it going to provide self-defense if not for the threat of maiming or killing the person who would be attacking you?
Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress? (Score:4, Interesting)
You said its sole purpose is “to maim and or kill people”. This is incorrect.
A weapon worn for self-defense has two purposes.
Its primary purpose is to show the threat of maiming or killing the would-be assailant. Its secondary purpose is to maim and/or kill an attacker who was not deterred by its primary purpose.
However, the “sole” purpose (nor the primary purpose even) is NOT to maim and/or kill.
Besides all of which, you say “maim and or kill” as if maiming and/or killing an attacker in self-defense is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not against people having or carrying guns. I object to people who attempt to try to claim that guns aren't made for the specific purpose of maiming or killing things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You, by both your behavior here today, and your account name, is to troll.
Guys, stop feeding the troll.
Re: (Score:2)
And if the "tool" happens to be designed to be lethal, do you have any problem with the ownership of that "tool" being carefully regulated by civil authorities, including licensing?
This is the question that separates the responsible gun owners from gun jackoffs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=83&issue=010 [nraila.org]
"Privately owned firearms in the U.S.: Approaching 300 million, including nearly 100 million handguns. The number of firearms rises over 4 million annually.
Gun owners in the U.S.: 70-80 million; 40-45 million own handguns.
You'd have to go a LONG way toward showing otherwise...
Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, and guns DO NOT kill people.... it's the person holding the gun that kills people.
Which is nothing more than a cute attempt at trying to deflect the fact that the sole purpose of a gun is to maim and or kill people.
This doesn't seem to be true on its face. You could modify the tail of the statement to include animals and you'd be okay, but you're specifically omitting this.
To make your statement true, you'd need to assume that guns were created to serve the needs of modern society. They weren't. The first projectile weapons were designed for harvesting animals from the wild. Animals, being faster and more wary than humans, needed to be killed at range. Humans, not so much. However, even in the traditional human-only weapons you'll find examples of converted tools. Swords are really just big knives, axes were used to work wood initially, etc. Now it is true that the first guns were probably cannons used on things like castles and the like, but the concept of propelling a solid object to collide with something and harm it had been long established beforehand. A world that would invent this concept only for killing humans is one where you can buy your food at a grocery store. This isn't where the gun comes from, historically speaking.
A gun is a tool just like any other. Using your line of assessment, one could look at online pornography and conclude that the computer was invented solely for this purpose. You could do that, but only by ignoring history.
Yeah...so? (Score:2)
the sole purpose of a gun is to maim and or kill people.
Just like swords. Or bows-and-arrows. Or any of a variety of weapons that civilians are allowed to own.
And why would a civilian want to own something which is designed to maim and/or kill people? Simple...some people are criminals, they intend harm, and the police are not around at the moment.
Survival is a real need. Some humans pose a real risk. Our protectors can't be everywhere at once. So, we must protect ourselves.
And before you start talkin
Re: (Score:2)
Why does looking at penises make heterosexuals stressed? because they are closet homos.
So you are saying that everyone is a homo? A more likely explanation is that it is an instinctual reaction to a perceived rival for potential female mates.
If you enjoy looking at penises, then you are probably a homo.
Actually (Score:3, Funny)
After watching a depressing 10 minute slide show of people who were feeling sick, all of the test subjects felt like getting drunk. Sadly, the only thing available was cough medicine.
Microsoft To Blame (Score:5, Funny)
Step #1: Fire up Linux box
Step #2: Hook up webcam
Step #3: Point webcam at co-worker's Windows box
Step #4: Linux more secure than ever.
Re: (Score:2)
...
Step #3: Point webcam at Linux user
Step #4: Only need to call in sick for hangovers.
Apples (Score:2)
Oranges can be substituted for apples if absolutely necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Apples are good, yes. I suggest a glass of mead as well, as honey is believed to boost the immune system and act as an antibiotic in its own right. In fact, if you get really drunk on the stuff, you might never get sick again.
Re: (Score:2)
... or at least won't remember it.
On the positive side, it's also delicious!
Stress? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The average person doesn’t get stressed when they see a picture of a sick person, either. Nor is it a possible disease threat, unless a sick person had handled the photograph...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you see guns as threatening in real life, a picture will not be threatening, consciously or unconsciously.
Actually, the subjects reported that the pictures of guns made them feel more threatened than the pictures of the sick people did: “Our participants rated those guns pictures as more distressing than the disease-y pictures.”
Furthermore, just about anyone will feel threatened on a subconscious level if you point an actual gun at them, even if they consciously know that it is unloaded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the result of the study. It isn't as if they discovered that water is wet. They found people reacting in a measurable way to photographs of a certain type. It follows that other tests would also have to include photographs, does it not?
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, is it really a surprise that the body will boost its immunity when it detects a possible disease threat?
No, that's not a surprise, but you missed the point of the study. The interesting part is that "when it detects a possible threat" can be triggered by images, rather than by physical exposure of your immune system to pathogens. That suggests that immune response has a pathway through your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it surprising? YES. Sure, it's easy to say after the experiment, "hey, that makes sense" and then call it obvious, but this is a really amazing mechanism, and I would not personally have guessed that our bodies are able to anticipate disease just through an image.
Re: (Score:2)
is it really a surprise that the body will boost its immunity when it detects a possible disease threat? I think we have a word that already accounts for that: evolution.
What is novel is the mechanism. We know that once nasties get into the body it starts pumping up resistance. Yet these people only looked at pictures. That means that a specific pattern of light can boost your immune system. That's crazy!
Re: (Score:2)
If they wanted to control for stress, showing pictures of guns in not going to do it. The average person does not get stressed when they see a picture of a gun. For an accurate control of stress, they would need to have someone burst in with a prop gun. THAT will cause stress. In any case, is it really a surprise that the body will boost its immunity when it detects a possible disease threat? I think we have a word that already accounts for that: evolution.
No, that would be an entirely different experiment. Think about what you would have used instead...
A) Photographs of ill people shown to group 1
B) Photographs of (people) shown to group 2
What do you use for option 'B' that doesn't also imply injury or illness, and yet is likely to be stressful?
There may be choices, but not too many good ones come to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem lies in the assumption. You'd need evidence that humans existed without this ability, and thus died off while those that mutated the capability survived.
Without that it could be evolution or something else entirely, and you can't really say which.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes good sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Makes good sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Better talk about it the other way around, or some people might strenghten their weird understanding of evolution.
When our ancestors were encountering visibly sick individuals, those with traits of discovered mechanism were somewhat more likely to survive and leave offspring.
Re: (Score:2)
This probably predates the evolution of humans as it would make sense for any social species, including most primates.
Re:Makes good sense (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got to get busy! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. If ramping up the immune system when necessary is an adaptive trait, then so is ramping it down when it's not needed (otherwise it would be turned up to 11 at all times). The immune system has costs, from metabolic (i.e. wasting energy) to self-damage (autoimmune disorders).
healthy enough already = ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, not likely. Your immune system is simply working properly; that includes boosting its activity when its needed (and toning it down when it would be a waste of energy, high activity needlessly increasing the risk of some tumors, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
no, but a "+1" will appear in the lower-left corner of your house
I'd rather be sick... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My butt clinches when i see it so I think my immune system is having the described effect.
Correlation Is Not Causation (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we suggesting that an increase in immune system activity CAUSED people to view a slide show about sick people?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, that tag is so overused now it's sickening (har har). It's used on Slashdot for practically anything, even if the study doesn't attempt to prove or claim causation. At some point, you have to admit that, you know, not all researchers are complete dumbasses.
In this case, how would you honestly argue that it's NOT causation? People were shown a slideshow, those people's immune systems had a response. THAT IS CAUSATION. We're not looking at survey results here, it's not like we can claim people who
Re: (Score:2)
Haha yeah, it's pretty inappropriate in this case. This was a causational study, not simply a measurement of correlation in the wild: they varied a variable in a laboratory setting, and measured how varying it changed the response variable.
There are of course many ways the study could be flawed, but it's not a case of measuring a correlation and then inferring a causation from it.
Re: (Score:2)
I just noticed the "correlationisnotcausation" tag. Is that just a knee-jerk reaction to studies now?
Slashdot is the biggest Pavlovian experiment I have ever seen. For example: There was a story yesterday about iPhone contact syncing support for Ubuntu. In the middle of the summary it clearly stated that Android support is coming. Despite this, two people posted asking for Android support.
That's just one example. Knee-jerk is what people do to earn +3 Insighful tags on this site.
Laughter is the best medicine... (Score:2)
I'll just swagger down to the local hospital ... (Score:3, Funny)
... and ask, "Y'all got any folks here who look like real sick? I need to look at 'em to boost my im-ma-ume system, or sumptin' like that.
Maybe that's why Mother Theresa lived so long: "For over 45 years she ministered to the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa [wikipedia.org] " She must have had one tough bad-ass immune system.
So if I watch more NASCAR, will I avoid traffic accidents, and get cheaper car insurance?
Maybe programmers should be forced to look at buggy programs . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe programmers should be forced to look at buggy programs . . . ?"
We did give them all Windows machines.
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe programmers should be forced to look at buggy programs . . . ?"
Believe me, it works. I've seen some seriously sad sh*t in my career. Definitely motivates to make sure your work does not look the same.
That's Gonna Get Me Off To A Bad Start (Score:2)
Correlation is not causation, but causation is. (Score:2, Funny)
Why the dickens are people tagging this "correlationisnotcausation"? It was a controlled experiment, so there weren't any hidden causes to explain away the causation. It's like people don't actually understand what "correlation is not causation" means... but I'd hoped that at least here on Slashdot folks would be cleverer than that.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing I'd question here is the use of pictures of people w/ guns to produce stress, as there are many people for which this is not s
Re: (Score:2)
just to explain your comment: correlation can occur without causation. causation can't occur without correlation. in order to tell the difference you conduct a controlled experiment with cases that include the hypothesized cause and other cases that include the control, a situation without the hypothesized cause. when you observe the effect in the cases with the hypothesized cause, you have not disproved the hypothesis. when you do not observe the hypothesized effect in the control cases, you have differ
Works for me (Score:4, Funny)
Better control groups using /. readers (Score:2)
2) 10 minutes of a PowerPoint presentation. Just about anything with lots of text. Have the presenter read out everything on the slides, word for word.
Obligatory Simpsons (Score:2)
I see dead people (Score:3, Funny)
If looking at sick people boosts the immune system, then looking at dead people should make me immortal.
New excuse to play violent video games (Score:4, Funny)
finally some research supporting "the other side" eh?
"This ain't pointless violence, it's immune boosting!"
Re: (Score:2)
A Second Mind (Score:2)
That is evidence that we have some sort of second intelligence within ourselves that is not regulated by our conscious abilities. I sometimes get that effect when I choose the wrong note on my euphonium and my fingers disobey and play the correct note despite my conscious intentions. It is like the opposite of a mistake. I am familiar with the sheet music but get distracted and when my mind gets off track some sort of memory kicks in for me.
So... (Score:3, Funny)
If I have the girlfriend watch a ten minute slide show of really pregnant women she can stop taking the pill?
Re:Frist Prost (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, but the answer was Naggers.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Randy, you do slay me.
Re: (Score:2)
Or are there images that would drop ones immune system?
Like perhaps rotten.com or goatse, or would those images still increase ones immune system?
Re: (Score:2)
what profit a man to gain living to 150 if he be turned to stone?
Re: (Score:2)
Medusa or basilisk?
I'm not sure which fits more.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They also took blood samples from the control group...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it will.
Provided you consider punching a mad scientist in the face to prevent being the subject of ill-conceived experiments part of the immune system.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post would be funnier if they hadn't done an experiment and taken readings to assess that conclusion.