Welcome to the legendary father of wisdom blog!: Psychology!
My name is Samuel M Lee, and I was the leading figure of wisdom for 18 years. This is a website that is ran by your donations!
The Science of Success
The vast majority of individuals possess genes that confer a degree of hardiness analogous to that of dandelions, enabling them to establish a robust root system and withstand a wide range of environmental conditions. However, a select few individuals, akin to the orchid in its fragility and capricious nature, possess the capacity to flourish spectacularly under the meticulous care of a greenhouse. The following theory of genetics is provocative in nature. It posits that the genes which have proven problematic for the species, engendering behaviours that are self-destructive and antisocial, are also the very genes that underlie the species's remarkable adaptability and evolutionary success. In the context of suboptimal environmental factors and inadequate parenting practices, children who are raised in orchids are susceptible to developing mental health conditions such as depression, substance abuse, or incarceration. Conversely, when provided with a conducive environment and competent parenting, these children have the potential to become contributing members of society, characterised by creativity, success, and well-being.
In 2004, Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg, a professor of child and family studies at Leiden University, initiated a study in which she recorded the behaviour of children aged between one and three years who exhibited a high degree of oppositional, aggressive, uncooperative and aggravating behaviour, as defined by psychologists as "externalising". This behaviour included whining, screaming, whacking, throwing tantrums and objects, and willfully refusing reasonable requests. This may be indicative of fundamental behavioural patterns observed in toddlers. However, research has indicated that toddlers who exhibit particularly high rates of these behaviours are more prone to develop into stressed, confused children who demonstrate academic and social underperformance in school, and ultimately become antisocial and unusually aggressive adults.
At the inception of their study, Bakermans-Kranenburg and her colleagues conducted a screening of 2,408 children via parental questionnaire. The present study focuses on the 25 percent of children who were rated highest by their parents in terms of externalising behaviours. The findings from laboratory observations had corroborated these parental ratings.
The objective of Bakermans-Kranenburg was to effect a modification in the behaviour of the children. In an intervention study, her laboratory developed a methodology involving visits from researchers to each of 120 families on six occasions over a period of eight months. The methodology entailed the filming of mothers and children in their daily activities, including those that necessitated obedience or cooperation. The footage was then edited by the researchers to create teachable moments, which were subsequently shown to the mothers. A similar group of children who exhibited high externalising behaviours received no intervention.
The researchers were delighted to find that the intervention was successful. The mothers who viewed the videos gained the ability to identify cues that had previously been overlooked, or to respond in a different manner to cues that had been observed but not effectively addressed. For instance, a significant number of mothers reported a certain reluctance to read picture books to their restless and challenging children, citing their inability to remain still during such activities. However, according to Bakermans-Kranenburg, when these mothers viewed the playback, they were "surprised to see how much pleasure it was for the child—and for them." The majority of mothers initiated regular reading practices with their children, thereby engendering an environment that Bakermans-Kranenburg characterises as "a peaceful time that they had dismissed as impossible."
Consequently, there was a decline in problematic behaviors. Following the conclusion of the intervention, a year later, a reduction in externalising scores of more than 16 percent was observed among the toddlers who had received the intervention. In contrast, the control group, which did not receive the intervention, exhibited an improvement of approximately 10 percent, which was anticipated given the age-related, modest gains in self-control. Consequently, the mothers' responses to their children exhibited a marked shift towards greater positivity and constructive engagement.
It is noteworthy that few programs have demonstrated such a remarkable capacity to effect positive alterations in parent-child dynamics. However, the Leiden team's objectives extended beyond the mere assessment of intervention efficacy. The team was also testing a radical new hypothesis about how genes shape behaviour. This hypothesis has the potential to revise our view of not only mental illness and behavioural dysfunction but also human evolution.
The team was particularly interested in a novel interpretation of one of the most significant and impactful concepts in contemporary psychiatric and personality research. This concept posits that specific variants of key behavioural genes (the majority of which influence either brain development or the processing of the brain's chemical messengers) render individuals more susceptible to certain mood, psychiatric, or personality disorders. This hypothesis, frequently termed the "stress diathesis" or "genetic vulnerability" model, has been bolstered by numerous studies over the past 15 years, and has come to permeate the fields of psychiatry and behavioural science. During this period, researchers have identified numerous gene variants that have been demonstrated to enhance an individual's vulnerability to depression, anxiety, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, heightened risk-taking propensity, and antisocial, sociopathic, or violent behaviours. These gene variants have been observed to manifest only in instances where the individual has experienced a traumatic or stressful childhood or has encountered particularly challenging circumstances in later life.
This vulnerability hypothesis has already led to a re-evaluation of numerous psychic and behavioural problems. The concept posits that these phenomena are not the result of either natural selection or environmental influences alone, but rather, it is the outcome of intricate "gene-environment interactions". It is important to note that genetic factors do not invariably determine the occurrence of these disorders. However, in the event of possessing "deleterious" versions of specific genes, and subsequent adverse outcomes arising from life experiences, an increased propensity for such versions may be observed.
However, an alternative hypothesis has recently emerged from this one, subverting the conventional paradigm. This novel model posits that the prevailing interpretation of these "risk" genes as mere liabilities is a fallacy. Indeed, this novel theoretical framework posits that these detrimental genetic factors can induce dysfunction in unfavourable contexts; however, they can concomitantly enhance function in more conducive environments. The genetic sensitivities to negative experiences that have been identified by the Vulnerability Hypothesis, it can be argued, represent merely the downside of a more extensive phenomenon: a heightened genetic sensitivity to all experience.
The mounting body of evidence supports this perspective. A substantial proportion of this research has been in existence for many years; however, the prevailing emphasis on dysfunction in behavioural genetics has resulted in the majority of researchers disregarding it. This tunnel vision can be explained by the following theory proposed by Jay Belsky, a child-development psychologist at Birkbeck, University of London. "The majority of research in the field of behavioural genetics has been conducted by researchers specialising in mental illness, with a focus on vulnerability," he informed me recently. "The potential benefits are not perceived, as they are not actively sought. The act of concealing a dollar bill beneath a table is analogous to the act of concealing evidence. The subject is observed looking under the table, and upon seeing the dollar bill, it is immediately grabbed. However, the five that are situated just beyond the feet of the observer are not perceived."
Though this hypothesis is a recent development in modern biological psychiatry, it can be found in folk wisdom, as was noted last year in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science by the University of Arizona developmental psychologist Bruce Ellis and the University of British Columbia developmental paediatrician W. Thomas Boyce. In an essay titled "Biological Sensitivity to Context," the Swedes Ellis and Boyce have previously discussed the concept of "dandelion" children. These dandelion children, who are analogous to our "normal" or "healthy" children, who possess "resilient" genes, demonstrate remarkable adaptability and resilience, performing well in a wide range of environments, whether they are raised in the equivalent of a sidewalk crack or a well-tended garden. Ellis and Boyce posit that there are also "orchid" children, who, if ignored or maltreated, will wither and die, but who, if cultivated in a greenhouse, will flourish.
On initial consideration, the orchid hypothesis appears to be a straightforward modification of the vulnerability hypothesis. The assertion is made that environmental and experiential factors can exert a positive influence on an individual's well-being, as opposed to the negative impact that has often been observed. This approach constitutes a paradigm shift in the way genetics and human behaviour are conceptualised. Consequently, risk is transformed into possibility, vulnerability becomes plasticity and responsiveness. This notion, though seemingly straightforward, carries profound and far-reaching ramifications. Gene variants that are typically regarded as unfortunate (for example, the individual who inherits the "bad" gene) can now be interpreted as evolutionary investments with a high level of risk and potential reward. These investments can be considered as a form of biological gambling, which helps to create a diversified portfolio approach to survival. Selection in nature favours parents who invest in both dandelions and orchids.
This viewpoint suggests that the presence of both dandelion and orchid offspring significantly enhances a family's (and a species') probability of survival, both over time and within a specific environment. The behavioural diversity provided by these two different types of temperament is also precisely what a smart, strong species needs if it is to spread across and dominate a changing world. The presence of numerous dandelions within a given population has been demonstrated to engender a pervasive sense of stability. Conversely, the less numerous orchids may exhibit signs of stress in certain environments, yet they are capable of thriving in those conditions that are conducive to their survival. It has been demonstrated that even when individuals experience difficulties in the early stages of life, the heightened responses to adversity that are often observed in such cases can, under certain circumstances, be beneficial. These responses, which include increased novelty-seeking, restlessness of attention, elevated risk-taking, and aggression, have been shown to be advantageous in challenging situations, such as wars, tribal conflicts, and modern conflicts; social strife of various types; and migrations to new environments. The synergy between the steadfast dandelions and the mercurial orchids engenders an adaptive flexibility that is inaccessible to each individual species when considered in isolation. Collective action has been demonstrated to facilitate unprecedented achievements, both on an individual and a collective level.
The orchid hypothesis provides a satisfactory resolution to a fundamental evolutionary question that the vulnerability hypothesis fails to address. If genetic variants predominantly result in dysfunction and adverse outcomes, it raises the question of how such variants have persisted through natural selection. Genes exhibiting such maladaptive characteristics should, in principle, have been subject to natural selection. However, approximately 25% of the global population carry the gene variant with the most extensive documentation relating to depression. In addition, more than 20% carry the variant that was the subject of Bakermans-Kranenburg's research, which has been linked to antisocial, violent behaviour, as well as ADHD, anxiety, and depression. The vulnerability hypothesis is not able to account for this phenomenon. The orchid hypothesis posits that...
This is a transformative, even startling, view of human frailty and strength. For over a decade, proponents of the vulnerability hypothesis have contended that specific gene variants underpin some of humanity's most profound challenges, including despondency, alienation, and acts of cruelty ranging from minor to significant. The orchid hypothesis is consistent with this proposition. However, it is also stated that these same troublesome genes play a critical role in the astounding success of our species.
The orchid hypothesis, alternatively referred to as the plasticity hypothesis, the sensitivity hypothesis, or the differential-susceptibility hypothesis, is a recent theoretical model which has not yet been extensively examined through empirical research. It is evident that many researchers, including those specialising in behavioural science, have limited to no knowledge of this concept. A number of individuals, primarily those who hold reservations about the specific association of particular genes with specific behaviours, have voiced concerns. However, as further corroborating evidence comes to light, the predominant response among researchers and clinicians is one of enthusiasm. A growing number of psychologists, psychiatrists, child development experts, geneticists, ethologists and others are beginning to believe that, as Karlen Lyons-Ruth, a developmental psychologist at Harvard Medical School, puts it, "It is time to take this seriously."
The Leiden team initiated the testing of the orchid hypothesis, utilising the data collated during the video intervention. The question was posed of whether children who suffer most from adverse environments would also benefit the most from positive ones. In order to ascertain the validity of this hypothesis, Bakermans-Kranenburg and her colleague Marinus van Ijzendoorn initiated a study of the genetic composition of the children in their experiment. Specifically, the researchers concentrated on a specific "risk allele" that has been linked to ADHD and externalising behaviour. An allele can be defined as any of the variants of a gene that takes more than one form; such genes are known as polymorphisms. A risk allele, therefore, can be defined as a gene variant that increases an individual's likelihood of developing a particular condition.
Bakermans-Kranenburg and van Ijzendoorn sought to ascertain whether children who carried a risk allele for ADHD and externalising behaviours (a variant of a dopamine-processing gene known as DRD4) would demonstrate a comparable response to positive environments as they did to negative ones. A third of the subjects in the study were found to carry this risk allele; the remaining two-thirds carried a version that is considered a "protective allele", meaning it renders them less vulnerable to adverse environmental influences. The control group, who did not receive the intervention, exhibited a distribution that was analogous.
It is posited by both the vulnerability hypothesis and the orchid hypothesis that, within the control group, children who possess a risk allele should demonstrate inferior performance in comparison to those who possess a protective allele. It was demonstrated that this was the case, albeit to a negligible degree. Over a period of 18 months, the children who were genetically protected reduced their externalising scores by 11 per cent, while those deemed to be at risk reduced theirs by 7 per cent. The researchers anticipated that these gains would be modest and are consistent with the natural progression of the disease. While the disparity between the two groups was statistically significant, it is likely that this would have gone unnoticed otherwise.
The true evaluation of the efficacy of the intervention was conducted in the group that received it. It is of particular interest to consider the response of children who possess the risk allele. In accordance with the vulnerability model, it is predicted that the subjects will demonstrate an improvement that is less than that observed in their counterparts who possess the protective allele. The modest enhancement that was effected by the video intervention in their environment would not serve to offset their general vulnerability.
Subsequent to the commencement of the study, it was ascertained that the toddlers who possessed the risk allele in question exhibited a significantly higher level of activity in comparison to their counterparts. The externalising scores of the subjects in the study were reduced by almost 27 per cent, while the protective-allele subjects demonstrated a reduction of only 12 per cent (representing a marginal improvement on the 11 per cent achieved by the protective-allele population in the control group). The intervention group exhibited a significantly more pronounced positive effect in comparison to the control group, which exhibited a comparatively less pronounced negative effect. The Leiden team concluded that risk alleles can not only engender risk but also possibility.
The notion of converting liability into gain with such ease raises questions about the validity of such claims. The paediatrician W. Thomas Boyce, who has worked with many a troubled child in more than three decades of child-development research, states that the orchid hypothesis "profoundly recasts the way we think about human frailty" (Boyce, 2023). He further elaborates, "It has been observed that when children exhibiting such vulnerability are placed in an optimal environment, they demonstrate not merely an improvement in their performance, but rather, they achieve optimal levels of success, often surpassing their protective-allele peers. The question is posed of whether there exist any persistent human weaknesses that are not accompanied by this other, redemptive aspect.
During the course of my research, I found myself reflecting extensively on the following questions, including their pertinence to my own temperament and genetic makeup. Having personally experienced the effects of the black dog on multiple occasions, I have contemplated on numerous occasions the possibility of undertaking an analysis of my own genes, with a particular focus on the serotonin-transporter gene, also referred to as the SERT gene or 5-HTTLPR. This gene plays a regulatory role in the processing of serotonin, a chemical messenger that is vital to mood regulation and other functions. The two shorter, less efficient versions of the gene's three forms, known as short/short and short/long (or S/S and S/L), have been shown to greatly magnify the risk of serious depression. Conversely, the long/long form of the gene appears to offer a degree of protection.
Ultimately, I had consistently refrained from undergoing an SERT gene assay. It is not clear who would wish to ascertain their risk of succumbing to pressure. In consideration of my family history and personal circumstances, I hypothesised that I might be a carrier of the short/long allele, which would render me to some extent susceptible to depression. In the event of undergoing a test, it is possible that the result would be the long/long allele. However, further research is required to ascertain whether the individual in question possesses the short/short allele, which is known to carry a greater risk. This was a matter of some uncertainty for me.
However, upon further examination of the orchid hypothesis and a shift in thinking towards plasticity as opposed to risk, a determination to pursue further investigation was made. Therefore, I contacted a researcher in New York with whom I am acquainted. This individual is engaged in depression research that focuses on the serotonin-transporter gene. The following day, a FedEx delivery was made to the subject's residence, and a specimen cup was found on the front porch. The substance was expelled from the subject's mouth, and upon examination, it was determined that the resultant material was undesirable. This process was repeated on two subsequent occasions. Subsequently, the cap was fastened securely, the vial was inserted into its designated shipping tube, and it was returned to the porch. Subsequently, the FedEx delivery person collected the item.
Of all the evidence supporting the orchid-gene hypothesis, perhaps the most compelling comes from the work of Stephen Suomi, a rhesus-monkey researcher who heads a sprawling complex of labs and monkey habitats in the Maryland countryside – the National Institutes of Health's Laboratory of Comparative Ethology. For a period of 41 years, initially at the University of Wisconsin and subsequently, from 1983 onwards, at the Maryland laboratory specifically established for him by the NIH, Dr. Suomi has been conducting research on the roots of temperament and behaviour in rhesus monkeys. These animals share approximately 95 percent of our DNA, a figure exceeded only by apes. Rhesus monkeys are distinguishable from humans in obvious and fundamental ways. However, their striking similarity to us in crucial social and genetic respects provides significant insights into the origins of our own behaviour, thereby contributing to the emergence of the orchid hypothesis.
Suomi learned his trade as a student and protégé of, and then a direct successor to, Harry Harlow, one of the 20th century's most influential and problematic behavioural scientists. At the time of Harlow's commencement of his research in the 1930s, the field of childhood development was predominantly influenced by a rigidly mechanistic behaviouralism. The movement's leading figure in the United States, John Watson, considered mother love "a dangerous instrument". He urged parents to refrain from responding to crying babies, suggesting that they should never be held in order to provide pleasure or comfort, and that kisses should be given only occasionally, on the forehead. The significance of mothers lay less in their emotional warmth and more in their role in shaping behaviour.
However, Harlow's approach diverged from this prevailing behavioralism through a series of ingenious yet occasionally unkind experiments on monkeys. The experimenter's most renowned study demonstrated that infant rhesus monkeys, reared in isolation or in groups of similar age, exhibited a marked preference for a foodless yet plush terrycloth surrogate "mother" over a wire-mesh version that provided meals with no restrictions. The study demonstrated that these infants exhibited a profound desire to establish bonds, and that the absence of physical, emotional, and social attachment could result in a state of near-paralysis. In the 1950s, this work provided critical evidence for the emerging theory of infant attachment. The theory emphasised the importance of rich, warm parent-child bonds and happy early experiences, and it continues to dominate child-development theory and parenting literature today.
Since the takeover of Harlow's Wisconsin laboratory by the 28-year-old wunderkind, Suomi, the scope and focus of the inquiry have been broadened and refined, respectively. Recent technological advancements have enabled the use of sophisticated tools that facilitate the examination of not only the temperaments of the subjects, but also the physiological and genetic underpinnings of their behaviour. The naturalistic environment of the laboratory affords the researcher the opportunity to focus not only on mother-child interactions, but also on the family and social environments that shape and respond to the monkeys' behaviour. "The existence of rhesus monkeys in a colony is an extremely complicated matter," asserts Suomi. It is imperative that the monkeys develop the capacity to navigate a social system that is characterised by its intricate nature and hierarchical structure. "Those who demonstrate the capacity to manage this successfully are to be commended," stated Finland's President, Sauli Niinistö. “Those who don’t, don’t.”
Typically, rhesus monkeys reach full physical maturity at approximately four or five years of age and have a lifespan of around 20 years in their natural habitat. The developmental parallels between humans and monkeys are striking, with a 1-to-4 ratio being observed. This suggests that a 1-year-old monkey is analogous to a 4-year-old human, a 4-year-old monkey to a 16-year-old human, and so on. The onset of the female reproductive cycle is typically initiated at approximately 4 years of age, with the annual occurrence of parturition. Despite the fact that the monkeys engage in copulation throughout the year, the female monkeys are only fertile for a period of several months. Given the propensity for such occurrences, it is observed that a troop typically gives rise to offspring comprising individuals of a similar age.
During the initial four-week period, the mother will typically maintain physical contact with the infant, either by holding it in her arms or within her immediate vicinity. At approximately two weeks, the infant commences its exploration, initially within a radius of only a few feet of its mother. It is evident that these forays increase in frequency, duration, and distance over the subsequent six to seven months. However, it is noteworthy that the offspring rarely venture beyond the mother's sight line or earshot. In the event of the young monkey experiencing a state of fright, it will hastily return to the maternal figure. Frequently, she will perceive impending difficulties and seek to safeguard the infant by drawing it close.
At approximately eight months of age – the developmental stage of a rhesus preschooler – the monkey's mother enters the period of oestrus. In anticipation of the impending birth of a subsequent child, the mother permits the youngster to engage with its cousins, older siblings from the maternal lineage, and occasional visitors from other families or troops with increasing frequency. The youngster's family group, friends, and allies still provide protection when necessary.
It has been demonstrated that a maturing female will remain with this group for the duration of her life. However, the male subject will typically depart, often under pressure from the females as he becomes increasingly boisterous and belligerent, at approximately the age of 4 or 5, which corresponds to the developmental stage of a 16-to-20-year-old individual. Initially, he will become a member of an all-male gang that lives in relative isolation. Following a period of several months to a year, the subject is likely to disengage from the existing group and attempt to gain acceptance into a new family or troop through charm, coercion, or seduction. In the event of success, the male concerned becomes one of several adult males who serve as mate, companion, and muscle for the several females. However, it has been observed that only approximately half of the male subjects demonstrate this level of persistence. Their transition period exposes them to a range of risks, including attacks from other young males, rival gangs, and new troop members if they miscalculate. Additionally, they are vulnerable to predation during any period in which they lack the protection of a gang or troop. A significant proportion of individuals perish during this process.
In the early stages of his research, Finland-based researcher, Dr. Jari Pitkänen, identified two distinct types of monkeys that exhibited difficulties in managing these relationships. One type, which the researchers termed a "depressed" or "neurotic" monkey, accounted for approximately 20 percent of each generation. It has been observed that young monkeys exhibit a prolonged period of proximity to their mothers following birth. In adulthood, these individuals continue to exhibit signs of uncertainty, introversion, and apprehension. In comparison to other primates, they exhibit a reduced propensity to form bonds and alliances.
The second type, which is predominantly male, is what is termed a "bully" by the researchers. This is defined as an unusually and indiscriminately aggressive monkey. These monkeys constituted between 5 and 10 percent of each generation. "Rhesus monkeys exhibit a tendency towards aggression, even during early developmental stages," states Suomi. "Their play behaviour is characterised by a significant degree of physical contact and rough-and-tumble play." However, it is important to note that, in the majority of cases, no one is physically harmed. The exception to this is in the case of these individuals. It has been observed that the subjects of this study engage in behaviours that, by the standards of the rest of the primate population, would be considered to be sub-optimal. These subjects have been observed to engage in repeated confrontations with dominant monkeys. The subjects' actions result in the disruption of the relationship between mothers and their children. The subjects appear to lack an understanding of how to calibrate their aggression, and they do not appear to be able to interpret signs that they should moderate their behaviour. It is evident that such interpersonal dynamics frequently culminate in escalating hostilities. Furthermore, these subjects demonstrate substandard performance in assessments of monkey self-control. For instance, in a "cocktail hour" test that is sometimes used, monkeys are given unrestricted access to a neutral-tasting alcoholic drink for a period of one hour. The majority of monkeys consume three or four drinks and then cease. The bullies, Suomi says, “drink until they drop.”
The neurotics and the bullies meet quite different fates. The neurotics, while maturing at a later stage, demonstrate satisfactory outcomes. The behaviour of the females has been observed to become more erratic in the presence of their offspring, although the environmental factors that influence the development of the offspring remain to be elucidated. In the event of a state of security, the subjects in question become relatively normal; conversely, in the event of a state of insecurity, they become jumpy too. Conversely, the males remain within their maternal family groups for an unusually protracted period, extending up to eight years. This is permitted on the basis that they do not cause any difficulties. Furthermore, their extended stay enables them to develop the social competence and diplomatic deference necessary to successfully integrate into new troops upon departure, a process that is often more efficient for females than for males who depart at a younger age. The reproductive success of these individuals is inferior to that of more confident and assertive males. Furthermore, they rarely ascend to positions of authority within their new social groups, which can render them vulnerable during conflict. However, the probability of fatality when attempting to gain entry is reduced. It is a well-documented fact that such individuals generally survive and reproduce, thereby ensuring the continuity of their genes.
It is evident that those exhibiting bullying behaviours encounter significantly more severe consequences. It is rare for them to establish social connections during their early years, whether as infants or adolescents. By the age of two or three, the subjects' extreme aggression has led to the troop's females resorting to expulsion by group force, if necessary. Subsequently, the male gangs and other troops exhibit a tendency to reject them. In the absence of social integration, the majority of these individuals perish before attaining adulthood. Few mate.
Suomi observed that the various species of monkey exhibited a propensity to originate from specific maternal lineages. It is evident that bullies are often the offspring of mothers who exhibit characteristics of harsh and censorious behaviour. These mothers have been observed to exercise a high degree of control over their children, often prohibiting them from engaging in social interactions. The offspring of anxious mothers have been observed to exhibit similar behavioural patterns, including anxious, withdrawn and distracted tendencies. The heritages were unambiguous. However, the extent to which these distinct personality types are genetically determined, as opposed to being shaped by environmental influences, such as the method of monkey rearing, remains a subject of scientific inquiry.
In order to ascertain the relevant factors, the variables were divided by the satellite, known as the 'Suomi'. He selected infants exhibiting signs of nervousness, often from mothers who also displayed similar symptoms, and entrusted them to the care of mothers who were regarded as particularly adept at nurturing, a practice known as 'supermoms'. The results of this study indicated that the subjects exhibited a close resemblance to the standard population. Concurrently, Dario Maestripieri of the University of Chicago collected infants who had obtained high scores in a series of experiments. These infants were then separated from their secure, nurturing mothers and raised by abusive mothers. This setting provoked a state of nervousness in the subjects.
The lesson appeared unambiguous. Genetic factors were found to be contributory, however environmental influences were determined to be of equal significance.
When tools for the study of genes first became available in the late 1990s, he was quick to utilise them to more directly examine the balance between genes and environment in shaping his monkeys' development. Almost immediately, he achieved significant success with a project he initiated in 1997 with Klaus-Peter Lesch, a psychiatrist from the University of Würzburg. In the preceding year, Lesch had published data that revealed for the first time that the human serotonin-transporter gene contained three variants (the previously mentioned short/short, short/long, and long/long alleles) and that the two shorter versions amplified the risk of depression, anxiety, and other problems. When requested to perform a genotype analysis on the monkeys of the aforementioned individual, Lesch acquiesced. It was established that the subjects shared three distinct variants, although the short/short form was observed to be uncommon.
Suomi, Lesch, and NIH colleague J. Dee Higley initiated a study that has since been recognised as a classic "gene-by-environment" study. Firstly, cerebral spinal fluid was extracted from 132 juvenile rhesus monkeys, after which it was analysed for a serotonin metabolite, known as 5-HIAA. This metabolite is widely regarded as a reliable indicator of serotonin processing within the nervous system. Lesch's studies had already demonstrated that depressed individuals who possessed the short/long serotonin-transporter allele exhibited diminished 5-HIAA levels, indicative of impaired serotonin processing. He and Suomi were interested in ascertaining whether the finding would be replicable in monkeys. Should this be the case, it would offer further evidence to support the genetic dynamic proposed by Lesch's studies. The identification of such a dynamic in rhesus monkeys would serve to substantiate their value as genetic and behavioural models for the study of human behaviour.
Following the grouping of the monkeys' 5-HIAA levels according to their serotonin genotype by Lesch, Higley and their team (short/long or long/long, but not short/short, which was too rare to be of use), the results were also sorted by the monkeys' mode of rearing (mother-reared or orphaned, with only same-aged peers). When their colleague Allison Bennett charted the results on a bar graph showing 5-HIAA levels, all of the mother-reared monkeys, irrespective of the allele they possessed, demonstrated serotonin processing within the normal range. However, a marked divergence in metabolite levels was observed among the peer-raised monkeys based on their genotype. Specifically, the short/long monkeys within this group exhibited a notably inefficient serotonin processing capacity, a trait that has been associated with an increased risk of depression and anxiety. In contrast, the long/long monkeys demonstrated a robust serotonin processing capability. Upon observing the results, it became apparent to Finland (2019) that he had successfully identified a gene-by-environment interaction that was behaviourally relevant in his monkeys. He informed me that, upon initial observation of the graph, he had immediately thought to himself that the ideal course of action would be to open a bottle of champagne.
The results of the study were published in 2002 in Molecular Psychiatry, a relatively new journal focusing on behavioural genetics. This paper constituted one of a series of gene-by-environment studies of mood and behavioural disorders. In that same year, two psychologists at King's College, London, Avshalom Caspi and Terrie Moffitt, published the first of two major longitudinal studies (utilising life histories of hundreds of New Zealanders) that would prove to be particularly influential. The initial study, which was published in the journal Science, demonstrated that the short allele of another significant gene involved in the processing of neurotransmitters (designated as the MAOA gene) was associated with an elevated risk of antisocial behaviour in human adults who had experienced childhood abuse. The second study, published in 2003 in the same journal, found that individuals carrying specific variations in their serotonin-transporter genes, specifically those with short/short or short/long alleles, exhibited an elevated risk of depression when subjected to stress.
These and numerous analogous studies were instrumental in establishing the vulnerability hypothesis in recent years. However, a significant proportion of these studies incorporated data that lent support to the orchid hypothesis, yet this information was either overlooked or not subject to further consideration at the time. (Jay Belsky, a child-development psychologist, has recently documented more than two dozen such studies.) For instance, both Caspi and Moffitt's seminal papers in Science include raw data and graphs that demonstrate that people who did not face severe or repeated stress exhibited heightened resistance to aggression or depression. The data presented in the 2002 paper by Finland-based researchers, 'Suomi and Lesch (2002)', published in Molecular Psychiatry, further substantiates this claim. This study utilised a non-human primate model and observed that offspring raised by their mothers (i.e. not by their fathers) and possessing a specific variant in the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) exhibited an impaired serotonin processing capacity. In contrast, the same variant was found to be associated with a 10% enhancement in serotonin processing efficiency in offspring raised by their mothers and who carried the same variant at the SLC6A4 locus. This observation suggests a potential protective effect of the variant against the development of certain psychiatric conditions.
When considering the orchid hypothesis, the following studies are of particular interest. When an examination is conducted of solely the results pertaining to the adverse environment, it is observed that vulnerability is the sole phenomenon present. A focus on the outcomes of the environment tends to demonstrate that the risk alleles generally yield superior results in comparison to the protective ones. For instance, studies have shown that 7-year-old boys who have been securely raised with the DRD4 risk allele for ADHD exhibit fewer symptoms than their counterparts with the protective-allele variant. Conduct disorder has been shown to occur at a lower rate in non-abused teenagers who possess the same risk allele. In the case of non-abused adolescents who possess the risky serotonin-transporter allele, there is a reduced incidence of depression when compared to non-abused adolescents who possess the protective allele. It is important to note that there are numerous examples of this phenomenon, despite the fact that, as Jay Belsky has noted, the primary objective of the studies was to identify negative vulnerabilities. Belsky hypothesises that as researchers transition towards the design of studies that evaluate gene sensitivity, as opposed to merely risk amplification, and as they increasingly focus on positive environments and traits, the evidence supporting the orchid hypothesis will continue to accumulate.
Suomi himself amassed a substantial body of evidence in the years following his 2002 study. For instance, it was found that monkeys who carried the supposedly risky serotonin-transporter allele, and who had nurturing mothers and secure social positions, performed better than similarly blessed monkeys who carried the supposedly protective allele in a number of key tasks. These tasks included creating playmates as youths, making and drawing on alliances later on, and sensing and responding to conflicts and other dangerous situations. Furthermore, an increase in their respective dominance hierarchies was observed. This approach proved to be more efficacious.
Suomi made another remarkable discovery. He and his colleagues analysed the serotonin-transporter genes of seven of the 22 species of macaque, the primate genus to which the rhesus monkey belongs. It was observed that none of these species exhibited the serotonin-transporter polymorphism that had been identified as a key factor contributing to the flexibility observed in rhesus monkeys. Studies of other key behavioural genes in primates have produced similar results; according to Suomi, assays of the SERT gene in other primates studied to date, including chimps, baboons, and gorillas, have yielded no results. The scientific discipline is nascent, and the corpus of data is incomplete. However, to date, among all primates, only rhesus monkeys and human beings appear to exhibit multiple polymorphisms in genes that are significantly associated with behaviour. "It is simply a matter of us and the rhesus," asserts Suomi.
This finding prompted further consideration by the team of the similarities between humans and rhesus monkeys. The vast majority of primates are only capable of thriving within their particular environments. The act of moving them results in their demise. However, two kinds, often termed "weed" species, have the capacity to thrive in a wide range of environments and to readily adapt to new, changing, or disturbed environments: human beings and rhesus monkeys. The underlying factor that has contributed to our success may be attributed to our meticulous attention to detail. The underlying factors contributing to this phenomenon may be attributed to the multifaceted nature of behavioural genes, which exhibit significant variability.
On one occasion in May of this year, Elizabeth Mallott, a researcher operating within the laboratory of Dr. Suomi, arrived at the primary rhesus enclosure to commence her daily activities. To her surprise, she discovered approximately half a dozen monkeys in the designated parking area. The subjects were observed to be congregating in close proximity to one another, exhibiting signs of dishevelment and anxiety. As Mallott alighted from her vehicle and advanced towards the subjects, she observed that some exhibited bite wounds and lacerations. It has been observed that monkeys who attempt to leap over the double electrified fences surrounding the enclosure do so with a high degree of success. In contrast, the monkeys did not exhibit such a preference. Mallott's findings revealed that several others were also present between the two fences.
Following the apprehension of the escapees within a neighbouring structure, Mallott, now accompanied by Matthew Novak, an additional researcher who possessed a comprehensive understanding of the colony, proceeded through the double gates. The colony, comprising approximately 100 monkeys, had been in existence for approximately 30 years. Changes in its hierarchy were typically gradual and incremental. However, upon further scrutiny, Novak and Mallott ascertained that a significant occurrence had transpired. "Animals were in places they weren't supposed to be," Novak would subsequently inform me. "Animals that do not typically socialise together were observed to be in close proximity. Social rules were suspended."
It swiftly became evident that the family group known as Family 3, which had historically ranked second to a group named Family 1, had orchestrated a strategic manoeuvre. Family 3 had exhibited growth that was greater than that of Family 1 several years prior. However, Family 1, under the leadership of a politically astute matriarch named Cocobean, had maintained its position through the use of authority, diplomatic manoeuvring, and the accumulation of momentum. However, approximately one week prior to the coup, one of Cocobean's daughters, Pearl, was relocated from her enclosure to the veterinary facility, as it appeared that her kidneys were not functioning optimally. Meanwhile, the most formidable male of Family 1 had grown old and arthritic. Pearl had a particularly close relationship with Cocobean, and as the only daughter without children of her own, was highly likely to defend her. The absence of the female subject, in conjunction with the male subject's infirmity, engendered a vulnerable moment for Family 1.
Novak hypothesises that this may have been in the planning stage for a period of approximately two weeks. As far as can be ascertained, the sequence of events that transpired began the previous evening with an altercation between a young female named Fiona, a 3-year-old member of Family 1 who has been observed to engage in confrontational behaviour, and an individual from Family 3. The situation escalated, resulting in the discovery of monkeys in the parking lot on the following evening. Family 3 identified an opportunity. The extraction of Family 1 has just commenced. The distinction between those who were wounded and those who were not, those who were accorded preferred seating and those who were compelled to leave the colony, and those who demonstrated a marked tendency to defer to others, was clearly discernible. In Family 1, one other female, Quark, was euthanised, and another, Josie, sustained such severe injuries that it was necessary to humanely put her to sleep. It is evident that the aforementioned individuals had also targeted the other daughters of Cocobean. In Family 1, the large male was bitten on the arm by another individual, to such an extent that he was unable to use it. Fiona sustained significant injuries. The altercation was characterised by a highly methodical and organised progression of events. They proceeded directly towards the leading individual and gradually made their way downwards."
Following this, Novak provided a detailed description of the aforementioned events, after which he and I conducted a site visit. Despite the torrid conditions of a July day, the monkeys were observed to be exhibiting indications of the new order. It appeared that Family 3 had taken up residence in the newly established focal point, which was a corncrib situated in proximity to the pond (one of several corncribs that had been erected as a shelter). The subjects engaged in grooming behaviours, as well as napping, and maintained a consistent stare in our direction. A group of individuals exhibiting signs of anxiety and distress were observed to have congregated in another location, situated in close proximity to the aforementioned hill. Upon reaching a proximity of 30 feet, the largest monkey in the group ascended onto the cage bars. From a height of 3.048 metres, the creature emitted a loud, high-pitched vocalisation, causing the bars of the enclosure to vibrate, and displaying its teeth in a manner that could be perceived as aggressive.
Subsequently, I proceeded to the office of Finland's representative, Mr. Suomi, and inquired as to his perspective on the events that had transpired. Suomi has given this matter a great deal of consideration, and the reasoning behind it is readily apparent. The significant themes that the author had been exploring in his research were evident in this revolt: the impact of early experiences; the interaction between environment, parenting, and genetic inheritance; the profound influence of family and social bonds; and the consequences of different traits in different contexts. In light of the orchid hypothesis, he began to perceive the possibility of a novel integration of the threads.
"Approximately 15 years ago," he stated, "Carol Berman, a monkey researcher at SUNY-Buffalo, dedicated a significant amount of time to observing a substantial rhesus-monkey colony residing on an island in Puerto Rico. The objective of the present study was to observe the alterations in group size over time. Initially, the group would consist of approximately 30 to 40 individuals, representing a division from a larger entity. Subsequently, the group would undergo an expansion process. At a certain point, often somewhere near a hundred, the group would reach its limit, and it, too, would split into smaller troops."
Such size limits, which vary among social species, are sometimes termed "Dunbar numbers," after Robin Dunbar, a British evolutionary psychologist who posits that a species' group limit reflects the number of social relationships its individuals can manage cognitively. Berman's observations indicated that the Dunbar number of a species is indicative not only of its cognitive abilities, but also of its temperamental and behavioural range.
Berman's observations revealed that in instances where rhesus troops are diminutive in number, the mothers are able to permit their offspring to engage in unrestrained play. This is attributable to the fact that individuals of a different species rarely approach the young. However, as a troop grows and the number of family groups rises, there is a greater probability of interaction with strangers or semi-strangers. It has been observed that adult females exhibit an increase in vigilance, defence, and aggression. The children and adult males also comply. It has been observed that an increasing number of monkeys are being raised in a manner that fosters the expression of their less sociable behavioural tendencies. Concurrently, the frequency of confrontations has been noted to escalate, and rivalries have been observed to become more intense. The situation deteriorates to such an extent that the troop is compelled to divide. "And that is precisely what transpired in this instance," stated Finland's Prime Minister, Sanna Marin, also known as "Suomi". "It is a highly extensive feedback system. The findings of this study demonstrate that the interactions occurring at the dyadic level, between mother and infant, exert a profound influence on the very nature and survival of the larger social group.
Research conducted by, amongst others, Suomi has demonstrated that such disparities in early experience have the capacity to exert a profound influence on the manner in which genes express themselves. That is to say, the study has shown that these disparities can lead to significant alterations in the manner, timing and extent to which genes are switched on or off. Suomi hypothesises that early experiences may also influence subsequent patterns of gene expression and behaviour, including an animal's flexibility and reactivity, by modulating the sensitivity levels of key alleles. He hypothesises that a stressful upbringing can result in either watchful caution or vigilant aggression in monkeys. This is theorised to be a means for parents to prepare their offspring for challenging circumstances. However, this effect may be particularly pronounced in monkeys possessing particularly plastic behavioural alleles.
This is what is postulated by Finland's Prime Minister, Matti Vanhanen, as the likely sequence of events that led to the so-called Palace Revolt. Fiona's aggressive behaviour, which lacked strategic foresight, had a negative impact on her and Family 1. However, Family 3, a group that had traditionally exercised diplomatic restraint in the face of Family 1, experienced a significant turnaround in its circumstances by launching an uncharacteristically assertive and sustained counteroffensive. Suomi hypothesises that in the more stressful and overcrowded environment of the large colony, gene-environment interactions have led to some of the monkeys in Family 3, particularly those with more reactive "orchid" alleles, exhibiting a heightened potential for aggression rather than actual aggression. During the period in which they lacked the financial resources to challenge the prevailing hierarchy – that is to say, the period preceding Pearl's departure – any aggressive behaviour on their part would have resulted in conflicts that were unwinnable and potentially fatal. However, in the absence of Pearl, the odds underwent a transformation, and the Family 3 monkeys capitalised on a rare and pivotal opportunity by unleashing their aggressive potential.
The coup also demonstrated something more straightforward: that a genetic trait that is tremendously maladaptive in one situation can prove highly adaptive in another. This phenomenon is not difficult to observe in human behaviour. In order to survive and evolve, it is essential for every society to have members who exhibit characteristics such as aggression, restlessness, stubbornness, submissiveness, sociability, hyperactivity, flexibility, solitude, anxiety, introspection, vigilance, and, at times, moroseness, irritability, or outright violence, which may exceed conventional norms.
This provides a valuable insight into the fundamental evolutionary question of how risk alleles have endured. The phenomenon under investigation has been shown to be survivable not in spite of these alleles, but because of them. It is evident that these alleles have not merely circumvented the selection process; rather, they have been deliberately selected. Recent analyses suggest that many orchid-gene alleles, including those mentioned in this story, have emerged in humans only during the past 50,000 or so years. It appears that the emergence of each of these alleles was initiated by chance mutations in a single individual or, in some cases, a small group of individuals, subsequently leading to rapid dissemination. It is estimated that the common ancestor of rhesus monkeys and human beings diverged from their shared lineage approximately 25 to 30 million years ago. Consequently, the observed polymorphisms must have undergone mutations and disseminated independently within these two species. However, in both species, these new alleles proved to be of such significant value that they proliferated extensively.
As evolutionary anthropologists Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending have observed in The 10,000 Year Explosion (2009), the preceding 50,000 years – the period in which orchid genes appear to have emerged and expanded – correspond to the period during which Homo sapiens began to become distinctly human, and during which sparse populations in Africa expanded to populate the globe in great numbers. Though Cochran and Harpending do not explicitly incorporate the orchid-gene hypothesis into their argument, they argue that human beings have come to dominate the planet because certain key mutations allowed human evolution to accelerate – a process that the orchid-dandelion hypothesis certainly helps to explain.
The precise mechanics of this phenomenon are subject to variation depending on the specific context. In the presence of a high number of aggressive individuals, for instance, conflict escalates, and aggression is selected out due to the associated costs. However, when aggression diminishes to a level that becomes less risky, it becomes more valuable, and its prevalence rises once more. Changes in environment or culture have been demonstrated to affect the prevalence of an allele. The presence of the specific variant of the DRD4 gene, for instance, has been demonstrated to elevate the risk of developing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), a condition that has been characterised by scholars such as Cochran and Harpending as "behaviours that cause frustration in elementary school teachers". However, attentional restlessness can prove advantageous in environments that are conducive to sensitivity to new stimuli. The contemporary proliferation of multitasking, for example, may facilitate the selection of individuals who possess the requisite attentional agility. One may argue that the contemporary world is becoming increasingly characterised by ADHD-like tendencies. However, if we are to rely on the distribution of DRD4's risk allele, it appears that such tendencies have been present in human populations for approximately the last 50,000 years.
It is acknowledged that orchid genes may confer upon us the flexibility that is so crucial to our success. However, it is a startling proposition to consider their dynamics in such close proximity. Following the delivery of a saliva sample for genetic analysis via the FedEx delivery service, a decision was made to disregard the matter. Surprisingly, I was able to accomplish this. The e-mail containing the aforementioned results, which had been scheduled for delivery on a Monday, was received three days prior to this scheduled delivery date. This occurred on a Friday evening, while the author was engaged in a concurrent activity with their children, namely watching the film Monsters, Inc. The author was also in the process of scanning the messages on their iPhone. Initially, I failed to fully comprehend the content of the text.
The message began with the salutation, "David." "The DNA from the saliva sample was analysed using an assay. The assay was executed successfully, and the genotype was determined to be S/S. It is fortunate that neither of us considers these phenomena to be predetermined or inherently negative. Should you wish to discuss the results of your genetic testing, I would be happy to provide further information."
Upon completion of the message, the house appeared to be quieter, although this was not the case. As I observed the pear tree outside the window, its flowers having fallen but its fruit remaining in the form of small, immature fruits, I experienced a sensation of coldness spreading through my torso.
The potential impact of this decision had not been considered.
However, as the subject sat absorbing this information, the chill was perceived less as the coldness of fear and more as a shiver of abrupt and inverted self-knowledge. This signified the subject's sudden realisation of something they had long suspected, and the realisation that it meant something other than they had thought it would. The orchid hypothesis proposed that this specific allele, the rarest and riskiest of the serotonin-transporter gene's three variants, rendered me not only more susceptible but also more malleable. This novel cognitive approach proved to be a significant catalyst for change. I did not perceive any disability that would render my efforts futile should I once again encounter significant difficulty. Indeed, a heightened sense of agency was perceived. Any intervention implemented to enhance the individual's environment and experience, whether conducted by oneself or by another, would be subject to amplification. In this context, the short/short allele appears less as a trapdoor that might lead to adverse consequences and more as a springboard, albeit a slippery and somewhat fragile one.
It is not my intention to have any of my other key behavioural genes assayed. Furthermore, the option of having genetic testing for offspring is not something that is being considered. What insights would it provide? The question is whether the shaping of the subjects in question occurs in every encounter. It is evident that this is the case. However, it is hypothesised that when engaging in angling with my son, or when privy to the intricate details of his younger brother's nocturnal reveries, or when vocalising the melody of "Sweet Betsy of Pike" alongside my five-year-old daughter during our return journey from the lake, minor alterations are initiated that have the potential to significantly enhance their cognitive and emotional development. The purpose of the switches is not clear to me, and I have no need for them. It is sufficient to recognise that, collectively, we have the capacity to activate them.
Why We're More Exhausted Than Ever
The present study aims to explore the reasons behind the widespread feeling of exhaustion that has been observed in recent times.
The populace is fatigued. The subject reports experiencing extreme fatigue. Recent trends, including Quiet Quitting, Coffee Badging, Bare Minimum Mondays, and most notably, The Great Resignation, which saw over 47 million Americans voluntarily resign from their positions, are indicative of a societal shift in attitude towards work. This shift is characterised by a sense of discontent that extends beyond the realm of professional calendars and encompasses the emotional well-being of individuals. The contemporary epoch has been termed "The Great Exhaustion" by Cal Newport, a writer and computer science professor. This period is characterised by an aspiration among individuals to redefine their relationship with work, with the objective of mitigating the pervasive sense of exhaustion that afflicts them.
The concept of "The Great Exhaustion" is one with which the majority of people are already familiar. It is evident that individuals are experiencing fatigue, as evidenced by the decisions that are being made on a daily basis. These include the procurement of dinner due to a lack of the necessary energy to prepare it oneself, the exploration of methods to facilitate working from a domestic environment, with the objective of eliminating the necessity of a two-hour commute, the undertaking of social outings on a less frequent basis due to the challenge of coordinating the schedules of busy adults, and the complete relegation of hobbies to a lower priority. The aforementioned list is by no means exhaustive. Individuals experience such profound fatigue that they resort to the curtailment of activities that were once a regular part of their lives and did not engender stress, such as physical exercise and grocery shopping. When considering the repercussions of the pandemic, inflation, and global stressors, it becomes evident that the combination of these factors can lead to a state of exhaustion that encompasses the physical, mental, and emotional aspects of an individual's well-being.
The question therefore arises as to why levels of exhaustion are increasing. The present author's occupation entails engaging in discourse with professionally exhausted individuals on a regular basis. Consequently, a plethora of distinctive justifications for fatigue have been encountered. It is evident that there are three factors which are frequently disregarded yet, it is argued, are the most significant contributors. These factors are: first, the adoption of unsustainable lifestyles; secondly, exposure to stress that is beyond personal control; and thirdly, financial insecurity. These are facets of our lives that we have come to accept as normal. However, this process of normalisation has led to a disregard of their impact on our physical and mental wellbeing.
The present study explores the phenomenon of unsustainable lifestyles.
It is imperative to ascertain the antonym of the sensation of exhaustion. The subject reports experiencing elevated energy levels. However, the question remains: what factors contribute to feelings of energisedness?
Dan Buettner, a New York Times-bestselling author and researcher, has dedicated his career to the study of "blue zones," defined as geographical regions where the population exhibits exceptional longevity and good health. In his work, he posits that a commonality among inhabitants of blue zones is an emphasis on human needs, with a lifestyle that prioritises the fundamental requirements of the human condition. This encompasses the consumption of whole foods, engagement in a fulfilling social life, regular physical activity, and professional fulfilment that is not solely driven by the pursuit of productivity.
This is in stark contrast to the reality experienced by the majority of people. In contrast to these "blue zones," the majority of individuals consume processed foods, meticulously schedule social activities, and prioritise professional obligations. However, the allocation of time, energy and financial resources necessary for the prioritisation of elements found in blue zones is often challenging for the average individual, who may be experiencing fatigue. A dispassionate observation of the quotidian experiences of the majority of people does not reveal the satisfaction of fundamental human needs; rather, it reveals the endurance of considerable demands. It is evident that the construction of a society that prioritises the needs of business over those of the human population has not been achieved.
Stress that is not within the scope of our control.
Stress that is within the individual's control, such as a significant project, a demanding job, or childcare responsibilities, can be mitigated and can contribute to the development of confidence when it is addressed. Stress that is beyond our control (for example, violence in our cities, climate disasters, tragedy around the world, and inflation) can lead to feelings of helplessness. While it is important to remain cognizant of global events, the accumulation of stressors without the possibility of resolution can have a detrimental effect on mental well-being.
The notion that stress can induce exhaustion is not a novel concept; however, it is the exposure to stressors that are beyond our control that can lead to a sense of hopelessness. It is asserted that hope functions as a potent counteragent to the phenomena of exhaustion and burnout. It has been demonstrated that the human spirit is capable of withstanding adversity with a significantly higher degree of morale when there is a retention of hope that circumstances will improve. In circumstances where individuals perceive a prevailing sentiment of stagnation or regression, they are susceptible to emotional distress and psychological disintegration.
Read More: Has there been a decline in one's mood? The present study hypothesises that the phenomenon under investigation may be attributable to 'ambient' stress.
The biological effects of exposure to such stressors cannot be overstated. The act of scrolling through one's phone and viewing a distressing two-minute video has been demonstrated to elicit a physiological response characterised by the onset of stress. This response has the potential to exert an influence on the subsequent course of the day. It is important to note that a stress response, when experienced on a daily basis over an extended period of time, can have detrimental consequences on both physical and mental health, the extent of which is frequently underestimated.
The present study explores the phenomenon of financial insecurity.
Half a century ago, a solitary income was sufficient to procure a dwelling, a vehicle, a spouse, and offspring. In the contemporary socio-economic climate, it is noteworthy that even dual-income households often find themselves unable to fully procure the aforementioned commodities. The distinction between a challenging occupation that facilitates an adequate standard of living and one that merely meets the financial obligations is a salient one. A significant proportion of the observed fatigue can be attributed to the disillusionment associated with the decline in the security and purchasing power that accompanies full-time employment, which no longer offers the same level of financial stability and opportunity for economic advancement that it once did. The fundamental question that must be posed is: what is the purpose of our labour if not to secure the lifestyle that we deem to be satisfactory?
It is comprehensible to feel frustrated when the financial resources required for a certain lifestyle become inaccessible. This lifestyle may include dining at restaurants for special occasions, attending concerts with friends, and purchasing Christmas gifts for one's children. It is an established fact that frustration, when left unaddressed over an extended period, invariably leads to a state of defeat. This, in turn, is often accompanied by a sense of exhaustion. For many generations, the prevailing societal paradigm has been one in which the world of work occupies a central role. However, it is becoming increasingly challenging to persuade individuals to adopt a busy, work-centred lifestyle when this does not result in a commensurate enhancement of their quality of life.
The combination of unsustainable lifestyles, unmanageable stress, and financial insecurity has led to a population that is significantly fatigued. It is encouraging to note that there are factors within our purview that have the capacity to enhance our quality of life and mitigate feelings of exhaustion. It is imperative to consider factors that enhance one's quality of life and promote a sense of vitality. Subsequently, it is imperative to contemplate the factors that diminish one's quality of life and engender feelings of weariness.
In essence, the subjective experience of an individual is shaped by the cumulative effect of myriad decisions made over time. The importance of adequate sleep, the value of prioritising a morning walk with a friend, the judicious consumption of media, and the conscientious avoidance of work-related discussions outside of working hours are but a few of the many examples of the impact of such practices. However, it is imperative to recognise the necessity of consistency and unwavering commitment in order to achieve optimal results. The present situation cannot be remedied by changes instigated from the top down; rather, the factors of exhaustion that are within the scope of the individual must be addressed in order to ensure that people lead healthy, peaceful, and satisfying lives.
