People who live alone in middle age face nearly double the risk of developing cognitive problems in later life compared with married or cohabiting counterparts, according to a study published Friday.
[ ]…”People living without a partner at mid-life had around twice the risk of developing cognitive impairment in later life compared with people living with a partner,” the study found.
The risk was roughly triple among those who had been widowed or divorced in mid-life and were not living in partnership in later life.
[ ]…Compared with co-habitants, men who lived alone in mid-life were two and a half times likelier to develop cognitive impairment later in life. The risk for women, though, was 1.87 times.
They also found a powerful link between Alzheimer’s, living alone and a variant of a gene called apolipoprotein E-e4 which makes a protein associated with this disorder.
Nobody wants to suffer from cognitive impairment – excepting people who drink, smoke pot, take mood enhancing drugs, people that do not like to exercise, people that are morbidly obese, people that are obsessively religious….After all the exceptions, that leaves a few librarians, health nuts, symphony conductors, professional gamblers, mathematicians and contrarians that really think or care about losing their cognitive edge.
Relationships are important, we are the social animals, few humans choose to never have some type of long term relationship. We could try to get better at relationships, but the approximately 50% chance at a successful long term relationship has remained at that level for nearly twenty years, so probably not an area that is going to improve any time soon. That Alzheimer’s-gene-protein link between one type of impairment and social environment would suggest that middle-aged singles could probably find some social activity/cognitive exercises/therapy that might make cognitive impairment less then destiny.
People that are in destructive relationships will probably find staying together just because they might lose their edge in video games less then compelling.
original star spangled banner . photolithograph from an old newspaper photo. the banner is currently in the National Museum of American History. it has 15 stars and fifteen stripes. it was the custom at the time it was made by Mary Young Pickersgill to have a star and stripe for each new state. in comparison to the now standard 13 stripes, one for each original colony and a star for every state.
It would be nice to be able to claim that never has so much typing been done on so unworthy a subject, but that wouldn’t be true. The media tends to fed the public far too much pablum. Serious news turns many people off and hurts subscriptions, ratings and clicks which in turn hurts the chances for media figures to own a McMansion in Connecticut. In keeping with recent analogies about fish it is probably swimming up river to try stopping the myths, but someone is trying – The Myth of How the Media Destroyed Palin
In fact, in the months after the November election, we heard from pundits and disgruntled GOPers that the media helped elect Obama by attacking, or mocking, Sarah Palin. These critics still allege that she had given John McCain a big boost in the polls when first named and that she would have help drive him to victory–if not for the allegeldy unfair treatment by Katie and Tina Fey and those mean bloggers and all the rest.
But this is not true. The myth should be put to bed once and for all.
In fact, Palin never really helped him except with his “base,” which he would have won over anyway.
Greg Mitchell sites several polls done during the election campaign,
In fact, men seem to be more impressed with this move than women. Just now, this seems to be confirmed by a CBS poll, showing Obama with a 48% to 40% lead overall — but with a wide lead among women, at 50% to 36%, which has only widened. Only 13% of women said they might be more likely to vote for McCain because of Palin, with 11% saying they are now less likely.
[ ]…”But McCain picked up a couple of points among men. More important, McCain solidified his party’s base with the Palin selection, dropping Obama’s share of the Republican vote six points to just 5 percent now. The Palin selection did not help among women — that may come later — but it did appeal to Republican loyalists.”
[ ]…Men have a slightly more favorable opinion of Palin than women — 41 percent vs. 36 percent. “If McCain was hoping to boost his share of the women’s vote, it didn’t work,” (Gallup poll)
Many on the far right were not that thrilled with McCain. A search for McCain+RINO ( Republican in Name Only) will return hits from sites like FreeRepublic and other extremist conservative sites. Sites that in contrast were and still are more supportive of Palin – even though McCain’s record is in fact very extreme. She got the base fired up, the type of people that cheered when she accused then Senator Obama of being somehow un-American.