Look At Sick People To Give Your Immune System a Boost

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."

Comments

Alternate interpretation

[Minwee]

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.

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:Alternate interpretation

[Angst Badger]

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.

Re:Frist Prost

[Lunix Nutcase]

I'm sorry, but the answer was Naggers.

Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[EmagGeek]

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:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Mister Whirly]

Really? because I have been a gun owner for about 15+ years and my guns have never maimed or killed anyone. Maybe I should return them for a refund??

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:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Low Ranked Craig]

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:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[clone53421]

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:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[BobMcD]

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.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[purplepolecat]

It's not just a guy with a gun. It's a guy in a stocking mask with an angry expression, pointing a gun directly at the viewer. If you ever find yourself in this situation in real life, the appropriate response is to feel threatened. Just so you know.

Re:Why do photos of guns cause stress?

[Eternauta3k]

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.

Microsoft To Blame

[MyLongNickName]

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.

Makes good sense

[querent23]

This makes perfect evolutionary sense for an emergent, highly social species. Without such a mechanism, it is possible that cities could never have occurred.

Re:Makes good sense

[sznupi]

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:Makes good sense

[timeOday]

Look, I believe in evolution, but it "explains" almost anything you can imagine, such as why humans have wings (to evade predators, of course). (My remark is by no means a new insight). So we need to be careful about rationalizing things in retrospect.

Correlation Is Not Causation

[shambalagoon]

I just noticed the "correlationisnotcausation" tag. Is that just a knee-jerk reaction to studies now?

Are we suggesting that an increase in immune system activity CAUSED people to view a slide show about sick people?

Works for me

[Low Ranked Craig]

All I know is that when I go visit my 87 year old grandma at the old folks home, I develop a burning desire to go to the gym and eat broccoli.

New excuse to play violent video games

[CODiNE]

finally some research supporting "the other side" eh?

"This ain't pointless violence, it's immune boosting!"