> increased levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), which the liver makes in response to inflammation in the body, can promote social media use among middle-aged adults and college students.
Sounds like they found correlation and called it causation. I’m keeping an open mind, but I find this article dubious. No link to any of the studies, no alternative explanations (I would guess any negative health markers are associated with higher tech use), and the title is a little too strong “Inflammation linked to social media use” would be easier to swallow, or even “contributes to”.
I find press releases like this both not useful and overall bad for the scientific community. It’s unfortunate because this may genuinely be an interesting line of research.
> I find press releases like this both not useful and overall bad for the scientific community.
University media offices seem to think it's their job to misinterpret and exaggerate scientific findings in whatever way will draw the most clicks to their press release.
I've only had a chance to skim, but there's all kinds of weirdness here. In "Study 3" they measure 171 college students' social media use on Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, ignoring TikTok, which those subjects probably use more than all the others combined.
n=1 anecdotal reflection here. I've had have chronic low grade inflammation from two different disorders for a very long time, including a GI disorder that definitely triggers my liver to work overtime (experienced in the form of general soreness, occasional stabs of pain in liver area and indications of impaired bile production and/or bile acid malabsorption, or BAM, during my longer flare-ups). So CRP is probably on the menu for me on a frequent basis.
The inflammatory aspect makes me feel like a complete zombie after several days of flaring up. I highly doubt this is a unique subjective experience. In fact, if you do some googling, you will find that chronic low-grade inflammation (as well as disruptions of the GI tract / microbiome) are quite strongly linked to treatment resistant depression, which is another thing I happen to have. I haven't personally read studies investigating it, but I suspect "brain fog" and attention/memory issues are also strongly correlated with chronic inflammation, even of the 'low grade' variety.
When I get into these states, brought on by flare-ups, my mind wants nothing more than to zone out in such a way as to increase the perceived speed with which time passes. Because time is basically the only thing that can get me out of a bad flare-up (as long as I avoid a huge list of foods and activities and strictly follow certain protocols as well). If I could sleep through all of it that would be ideal (a common refrain among the chronically depressed). And at the same time, stress and complicated situations increase the chances that I do something wrong that is likely to extend the flare-up (which to me suggests an adaptive role of depression during chronic health problems).
Even watching movies and TV feel too effortful at times: you have to focus on a storyline, remember what characters said and did, and maintain some emotional connection to the story in order to be engaged and thus have time pass quickly... all which takes effort. Social media truly is the high fructose corn syrup + hydrogenated palm oil of passive time-wasting activities. Getting into "the zone" in terms of mindlessly clicking as minutes and hours pass by in a flash takes almost zero effort once you are accustomed (read: addicted) to it. And everything is so bite-sized and condensed, it is perfectly tailored to someone who is having more trouble than normal focusing, staying engaged, and remembering stuff (even what was said/read 2 minutes ago).
Not scientific, but funny enough I was just thinking of my social media use last night, and I came to the realization that I use it as a way to distract from unpleasant feelings and as a pain killer. If I'm hungover, or sick, or worried about work, my social media usage goes up significantly.
Don't know if this is true for everyone but the study's findings match my personal experience.
It'd be nice if they included a link or even the title of the paper being referenced here to see the methods. It's hard for me to imagine how causation could even be investigated for this. You'd need to randomly induce inflammation on purpose to study participants, which seems like something you couldn't get through an IRB, nor would anybody consent to it if you could.
Otherwise, sure, you're telling me all of the factors associated with inflammation, i.e. illness, disability, injury, sedentary life, are also associated with people spending more time on social media than they might otherwise, doesn't seem like a revelation.
A more concerning relationship would be social media use induces inflammation / inflammatory responses. Perhaps the study controlled for the inverse causation, but maybe not.
So if there is correlation, the opposite causation would imply a more pernicious outcome, combined with the fact that social media use is addictive.
Some inflammatory event causing social media use like injury is a lot more limited than social media use by billions of people increasing stress. The short article didn't really assuage me of this.
It shouldn't be debatable that social media use increases the sensation that you are being watched/looked at by more people than normal. It would be a given that this increases stress and tension.
Yeah I see chronic inflammation as a sign someone isn't particularly disciplined when it comes to diet or exercise.
There's likely some correlation with being undisciplined with your physical health and being undisciplined when it comes to mindlessly consuming social media.
Depression is the probably the hidden variable here. Surprised it wasn't called out in this remarkable press release. The photo is an interesting choice.
Are we in agreement that social media is bad for us or not?
I'm a little confused as to why anyone is still using it, why people are still defending it, why we're all still talking about it and why I'm getting more (not less) random texts from friends / colleagues pressuring me to get back on to big social platforms.
What are the motivations for people to be daily activate users these days? Honestly just curious.
Social media is a form of high speed communication. That, in and of itself, it's not "bad". What makes it have a negative impact on society are the algorithms that have been put in place to sculpt what users experience on the platform. It brings together users with similar (sometimes irrational) thought patterns. This creates echo chambers and the illusion that a person's illogical beliefs are held by a majority of people. That can lead to polarization and galvanization of extremist beliefs. That is a very bad thing indeed.
On a more superficial level, it often creates a culture of comparison, where people judge themselves in relation to the lifestyles they see others apparently living. I use the word "apparently" because most of those lifestyles are complete fiction. None the less, that comparison can convince a person that they're "losing at life", which can lead to depression and all of the problems that come with it.
Why are people using it? To satisfy the innate human need for social connection.
Same reason people watch cable news. Because they want to be informed, and (likely incorrectly) believe seeing a non stop stream of information means they're more informed about what's going on in the world. Heck, the journalists themselves are absolutely hooked on social media, to the point they almost can't function without it.
am I wrong or is this a really huge leap from correlation to causation?
why isn't it that people who spend all day on social media get less sunlight and exercise therefore have more inflammation?
OK well they said this, sure:
> “For some people the relationship between social media use and inflammation may be a positive feedback loop, a cycle where more social media use leads to more inflammation, and more inflammation then leads to more social media use,” he says.
That quote is commentary, not science. You should ignore that from the paper/scientist, as it doesn't belong in research. It belong in the non scientific comment forums.
> The current paper used an existing data set of middle-aged adults for the first study, who completed survey questionnaires and provided blood samples the researchers analyzed for CRP. The authors collected their own data for the second and third studies using similar methods for college students.
Was the hypothesis pre-registered, or did they just check the survey results against a bunch of markers to see what popped? While the conclusion certainly seems plausible, it's hard to imagine that something as diffuse and hard to measure as social media use could be reliably correlated to a specific biomarker...
Sure, elevated inflammatory cytokines are consistently shown in imaging studies to reduce brain activity in motivation areas, and drive it in anxiety related areas [1]. So it makes sense to me that we would seek the lower effort emotional rewards that social media platforms can provide. What I'm surprised by here is that they don't find it's then used for entertainment value, but rather for social engagement. Which would indicate it drives a need to seek particular levels of oxytocin and vasopressin specifically:
> it's associated with social media to specifically interact with other users, like direct messaging and posting to people’s pages. Interestingly, inflammation did not lead people to use social media for other purposes—for example, entertainment purposes like watching funny video
Social Media creates the illusion of social connectivity. While I might tweet a reply to Garry Tan and he might like it. It doesn't mean we are best buddies.
I've been mentioning how weird parasocial relationships like this are to people for at least 10 years now and everyone thinks I'm being ridiculous.
I still don't think anybody should be caring about social interactions when it is on a scale of 1 to 1 million. Where it is 1 person interacting with a million people. If you can't respond to me as an individual on a 1 to 1 scale then I simply do not care about your personal life.
> Social Media creates the illusion of social connectivity. While I might tweet a reply to Garry Tan and he might like it. It doesn't mean we are best buddies.
Why would that be an illusion? If he did read your response that counts as a social interaction. People who smile at each others in random social situations are not best buddies and that’s not a problem.
I have never seen more talk about “inflammation” in any other context, physical or virtual, than I have on HN.
To me, talking about health problems from “inflammation” sounded at first like a buzzword used to sell snake oil(much like “toxins”), but there seem to be real studies by real scientists discussing it.
Am I in a bubble, or why is it such a rarely mentioned topic elsewhere?
Inflammation is a key factor of many medical conditions, many which can be identified by a "-itis" suffix. Might just not be in your bubble if you haven't crossed paths with these kinds of conditions.
Personally, I had not come across much inflammation talk until I had uveitis, which led to an identification of my ankylosing spondylitis (a form of spinal arthritis) which has also brings me enthesitis. All of these are inflammation based.
I had to learn a ton about it in the last year for my health-related issues. It's possible that it's just new information that's still propagating (and for some reason happens to concentrate on HN).
For reference, my recommendations came from my therapist when battling with depression (i.e. I wasn't really influenced by anything on HN).
Isn’t that where social media is consumed? It makes sense that this isolation drives us to connect, and in ways that are not as helpful as real meaningful connections.
Could someone explain what is meant by "inflammation" in this context? What exactly is inflamed and is it manifested externally in some visible way? I feel like I constantly hear about inflammation but it's never clear to me what is physically happening.
> Across three studies involving more than 1,800 participants, the findings — published in the journal Brain, Behavior and Immunity — indicate that increased levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), which the liver makes in response to inflammation in the body, can promote social media use among middle-aged adults and college students.
It's because they're not only talking about everyday visible inflammation. My understanding is that "inflammation" is a phenomenon in which cells release chemicals telling other cells that there's an injury, pathogens, or toxins nearby. These chemicals cause other cells to release further chemicals (a "signalling cascade"), leading to all sorts of effects ranging from the familiar swelling and redness and summoning of immune cells, all the way to allergic reactions, neural effects, long-term health outcomes, and (apparently) increased social media use. The effects no doubt differ based on the types and levels of inflammation-signalling compounds being released (of which there are many).
The overall level of inflammation is commonly determined by measuring the level of C-reactive protein in blood (it rises as a result of inflammation). It's commonly measured in blood tests.
There's a natural role for inflammation in the body, but it's also possible to have too much inflammation and experience negative outcomes as a result. A lot of recent research has been about the effects of inflammation signalling throughout the body, and much of the interest in antioxidants is because they may serve to reduce oxidative stress (which damages cells and also comes about as a result of inflammation).
Inflammation is the chronic response from the body's immune system to invasive foreign agents like bacteria, viruses, toxin, etc. The immune system sends out inflammatory cells and others to fight the invading agents and to heal the injured area. The area can become painful and swelling.
Inflammation may also come from physical isolation. There have been studies that lack of physical contact promotes a sort of "hunger" that has to be satisfied or else becomes destructive. Socio-physical contact rebalances some chemicals that satiate it. I wonder if this yearning causes an immune response. In case of social media, if this is what happens, the feedback loop is extremely obvious: the offer of some social contact while operating in actual complete physical isolation. This is a sort of a closed circuit, a thing that creates the need for itself.
Some personal anecdata: I have a genetic auto-immune condition, and my current treatment requires an injection every eight weeks. If untreated, the symptoms include inflammation of my body, especially sinuses, hands & fingers, feet & toes, elbows & knees. After taking my injection, the inflammation subsides.
About a year after starting treatment, I noticed that during the final week of that eight-week cycle and continuing for a few days after treatment, my time on Twitter was much higher than during the other 6.5-ish weeks. I figured it was something psychological, and was able to get my doctor to increase the frequency of doses, which curbed my Twitter visits even more.
Recently, I had a bout where due to insurance nonsense, I was delayed in getting my injection. I was heavily on Twitter, not as a result of conscious choice, but just because I felt like it. I took my shot a couple weeks ago, and have barely logged into Twitter over the last week and a half.
Correlation does not imply causation, but using my own anecdata, I can't rule out this study and in fact have some personal evidence to confirm it. I find it interesting that someone attempted to test a hypothesis that I had informally stated a few years ago.
"“It seems that inflammation not only increases social media use, but our results show preliminary evidence that it’s also associated with using social media to specifically interact with other users, like direct messaging and posting to people’s pages. Interestingly, inflammation did not lead people to use social media for other purposes—for example, entertainment purposes like watching funny videos,”
This is a really bold claim. What are the odds this is never replicated? I'd love to have a science gambling website, heck, I wonder if those odds could be added to confidence of a study.
My reaction's still 'duh' to be honest - you wouldn't necessarily want to do much more of things like watching videos than you were doing already, but the social interaction is replacing something.
At least assuming it's serious enough that you're stuck at home recovering - I'm realising as I write that my reading of it was quite biased by the image. Otherwise I would not think on reading 'inflammation' that it was particularly serious.
If they studied people with slightly swollen ankle or whatever, but walking about, at work, etc. and found a significant increase in their interest in socialising (social media just being the most easily measured form) that is pretty interesting.
I’m not sure that this is so bold or even surprising. I suspect the finding is because people are seeking actual social connection, not just diversion.
The body knows what’s going on even if we’re not consciously aware of it, and a response like: “seek out other humans” when the body is inflamed makes sense from an evolutionary perspective in a social species.
Obviously this needs further study, but it makes some kind of logical sense at least.
Most of the study participants were fellow students who participated in the study for additional credit. That really makes me wonder what amount of selection bias ended up encoded into the data.
Hmmm... CRP correlates to all kinds of things like lower levels of Vit D, less exercise, illness, etc...
If people are going out less, say because it's winter and they've been feeling unwell then we should expect CRP levels to be higher. We should probably also expect social media use while people are at home is probably going to be higher than when they're outside in the sun.
The idea that an inflammatory marker would actually drive people to seek out social media seems highly suspect to me. Do people with cancer develop an insatiable urge to use social media?
If it is true I think it would arise from a bit more of a transitive relationship but with more straightforward leaps in logic. Sick people are tired, tired people want to partake in sedentary activities more than they want to take part in highly physical activities relative to the rest of the population, social media is a highly popular sedentary activity among the studied cohort of students.
"An association with" does not indicate that a factor necessarily "drives" the outcome. It might just be associated with it but not caused by it.
What a terrible PR release written by a non-scientist ("News Content Manager") for clicks and hype and zero critical thinking. The worst part is, they didn't even include a link to the full study in the press release.
> If inflammation does indeed increase social affiliative motivation, it should also lead people to turn to social media, under such circumstances, as a means to fulfill social needs.
It would be interesting to see if introverts have lower inflammation in general. Sociality could be a disease condition.
Why wouldn't it be the other way around? I know people who reduced inflammation by staying off social media and away from news media. These things tend to induce stress, which can cause inflammation.
[+] [-] harles|2 years ago|reply
Sounds like they found correlation and called it causation. I’m keeping an open mind, but I find this article dubious. No link to any of the studies, no alternative explanations (I would guess any negative health markers are associated with higher tech use), and the title is a little too strong “Inflammation linked to social media use” would be easier to swallow, or even “contributes to”.
I find press releases like this both not useful and overall bad for the scientific community. It’s unfortunate because this may genuinely be an interesting line of research.
[+] [-] iak8god|2 years ago|reply
University media offices seem to think it's their job to misinterpret and exaggerate scientific findings in whatever way will draw the most clicks to their press release.
I've only had a chance to skim, but there's all kinds of weirdness here. In "Study 3" they measure 171 college students' social media use on Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook, ignoring TikTok, which those subjects probably use more than all the others combined.
[+] [-] InSteady|2 years ago|reply
The inflammatory aspect makes me feel like a complete zombie after several days of flaring up. I highly doubt this is a unique subjective experience. In fact, if you do some googling, you will find that chronic low-grade inflammation (as well as disruptions of the GI tract / microbiome) are quite strongly linked to treatment resistant depression, which is another thing I happen to have. I haven't personally read studies investigating it, but I suspect "brain fog" and attention/memory issues are also strongly correlated with chronic inflammation, even of the 'low grade' variety.
When I get into these states, brought on by flare-ups, my mind wants nothing more than to zone out in such a way as to increase the perceived speed with which time passes. Because time is basically the only thing that can get me out of a bad flare-up (as long as I avoid a huge list of foods and activities and strictly follow certain protocols as well). If I could sleep through all of it that would be ideal (a common refrain among the chronically depressed). And at the same time, stress and complicated situations increase the chances that I do something wrong that is likely to extend the flare-up (which to me suggests an adaptive role of depression during chronic health problems).
Even watching movies and TV feel too effortful at times: you have to focus on a storyline, remember what characters said and did, and maintain some emotional connection to the story in order to be engaged and thus have time pass quickly... all which takes effort. Social media truly is the high fructose corn syrup + hydrogenated palm oil of passive time-wasting activities. Getting into "the zone" in terms of mindlessly clicking as minutes and hours pass by in a flash takes almost zero effort once you are accustomed (read: addicted) to it. And everything is so bite-sized and condensed, it is perfectly tailored to someone who is having more trouble than normal focusing, staying engaged, and remembering stuff (even what was said/read 2 minutes ago).
[+] [-] colordrops|2 years ago|reply
Don't know if this is true for everyone but the study's findings match my personal experience.
[+] [-] nonameiguess|2 years ago|reply
Otherwise, sure, you're telling me all of the factors associated with inflammation, i.e. illness, disability, injury, sedentary life, are also associated with people spending more time on social media than they might otherwise, doesn't seem like a revelation.
[+] [-] gdubs|2 years ago|reply
Because another obvious hypothesis is that social media causes some kind of fight-or-flight response in people that triggers inflammation.
[+] [-] conductr|2 years ago|reply
I tend to think being idle is what drives most SM usage. Inflammation just happens to drive idle time because of pain being the alternative.
[+] [-] AtlasBarfed|2 years ago|reply
So if there is correlation, the opposite causation would imply a more pernicious outcome, combined with the fact that social media use is addictive.
Some inflammatory event causing social media use like injury is a lot more limited than social media use by billions of people increasing stress. The short article didn't really assuage me of this.
It shouldn't be debatable that social media use increases the sensation that you are being watched/looked at by more people than normal. It would be a given that this increases stress and tension.
[+] [-] m1sta_|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tempsy|2 years ago|reply
There's likely some correlation with being undisciplined with your physical health and being undisciplined when it comes to mindlessly consuming social media.
[+] [-] b800h|2 years ago|reply
Role of inflammation in depression: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6658985/
Depression and social media: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7364393/
[+] [-] pkdpic|2 years ago|reply
I'm a little confused as to why anyone is still using it, why people are still defending it, why we're all still talking about it and why I'm getting more (not less) random texts from friends / colleagues pressuring me to get back on to big social platforms.
What are the motivations for people to be daily activate users these days? Honestly just curious.
[+] [-] hk__2|2 years ago|reply
Why do you go on HN? That may be the beginning of a response since HN is a social platform.
[+] [-] IAmGraydon|2 years ago|reply
On a more superficial level, it often creates a culture of comparison, where people judge themselves in relation to the lifestyles they see others apparently living. I use the word "apparently" because most of those lifestyles are complete fiction. None the less, that comparison can convince a person that they're "losing at life", which can lead to depression and all of the problems that come with it.
Why are people using it? To satisfy the innate human need for social connection.
[+] [-] CM30|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zzzeek|2 years ago|reply
why isn't it that people who spend all day on social media get less sunlight and exercise therefore have more inflammation?
OK well they said this, sure:
> “For some people the relationship between social media use and inflammation may be a positive feedback loop, a cycle where more social media use leads to more inflammation, and more inflammation then leads to more social media use,” he says.
[+] [-] hgsgm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tqi|2 years ago|reply
Was the hypothesis pre-registered, or did they just check the survey results against a bunch of markers to see what popped? While the conclusion certainly seems plausible, it's hard to imagine that something as diffuse and hard to measure as social media use could be reliably correlated to a specific biomarker...
[+] [-] riazrizvi|2 years ago|reply
> it's associated with social media to specifically interact with other users, like direct messaging and posting to people’s pages. Interestingly, inflammation did not lead people to use social media for other purposes—for example, entertainment purposes like watching funny video
[1] 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5997866/
[+] [-] hinkley|2 years ago|reply
The problem is we're getting inflammation without earning it the old fashioned way: misadventure.
[+] [-] jsemrau|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] izzydata|2 years ago|reply
I still don't think anybody should be caring about social interactions when it is on a scale of 1 to 1 million. Where it is 1 person interacting with a million people. If you can't respond to me as an individual on a 1 to 1 scale then I simply do not care about your personal life.
[+] [-] hk__2|2 years ago|reply
Why would that be an illusion? If he did read your response that counts as a social interaction. People who smile at each others in random social situations are not best buddies and that’s not a problem.
[+] [-] l33t7332273|2 years ago|reply
To me, talking about health problems from “inflammation” sounded at first like a buzzword used to sell snake oil(much like “toxins”), but there seem to be real studies by real scientists discussing it.
Am I in a bubble, or why is it such a rarely mentioned topic elsewhere?
[+] [-] ssddanbrown|2 years ago|reply
Personally, I had not come across much inflammation talk until I had uveitis, which led to an identification of my ankylosing spondylitis (a form of spinal arthritis) which has also brings me enthesitis. All of these are inflammation based.
[+] [-] aliasxneo|2 years ago|reply
For reference, my recommendations came from my therapist when battling with depression (i.e. I wasn't really influenced by anything on HN).
[+] [-] hgsgm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukas099|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bearjaws|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] belltaco|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] djangelic|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tosser0001|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thenerdhead|2 years ago|reply
> Across three studies involving more than 1,800 participants, the findings — published in the journal Brain, Behavior and Immunity — indicate that increased levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), which the liver makes in response to inflammation in the body, can promote social media use among middle-aged adults and college students.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-reactive_protein
[+] [-] creamyhorror|2 years ago|reply
The overall level of inflammation is commonly determined by measuring the level of C-reactive protein in blood (it rises as a result of inflammation). It's commonly measured in blood tests.
There's a natural role for inflammation in the body, but it's also possible to have too much inflammation and experience negative outcomes as a result. A lot of recent research has been about the effects of inflammation signalling throughout the body, and much of the interest in antioxidants is because they may serve to reduce oxidative stress (which damages cells and also comes about as a result of inflammation).
"Chronic low-grade inflammatory process, on the other hand, plays a central role in the pathogenesis of a number of chronic diseases." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736408/
[+] [-] ww520|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] arroz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greenhearth|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baryphonic|2 years ago|reply
About a year after starting treatment, I noticed that during the final week of that eight-week cycle and continuing for a few days after treatment, my time on Twitter was much higher than during the other 6.5-ish weeks. I figured it was something psychological, and was able to get my doctor to increase the frequency of doses, which curbed my Twitter visits even more.
Recently, I had a bout where due to insurance nonsense, I was delayed in getting my injection. I was heavily on Twitter, not as a result of conscious choice, but just because I felt like it. I took my shot a couple weeks ago, and have barely logged into Twitter over the last week and a half.
Correlation does not imply causation, but using my own anecdata, I can't rule out this study and in fact have some personal evidence to confirm it. I find it interesting that someone attempted to test a hypothesis that I had informally stated a few years ago.
[+] [-] hospitalJail|2 years ago|reply
Then I read this:
"“It seems that inflammation not only increases social media use, but our results show preliminary evidence that it’s also associated with using social media to specifically interact with other users, like direct messaging and posting to people’s pages. Interestingly, inflammation did not lead people to use social media for other purposes—for example, entertainment purposes like watching funny videos,”
This is a really bold claim. What are the odds this is never replicated? I'd love to have a science gambling website, heck, I wonder if those odds could be added to confidence of a study.
[+] [-] OJFord|2 years ago|reply
At least assuming it's serious enough that you're stuck at home recovering - I'm realising as I write that my reading of it was quite biased by the image. Otherwise I would not think on reading 'inflammation' that it was particularly serious.
If they studied people with slightly swollen ankle or whatever, but walking about, at work, etc. and found a significant increase in their interest in socialising (social media just being the most easily measured form) that is pretty interesting.
[+] [-] haswell|2 years ago|reply
The body knows what’s going on even if we’re not consciously aware of it, and a response like: “seek out other humans” when the body is inflamed makes sense from an evolutionary perspective in a social species.
Obviously this needs further study, but it makes some kind of logical sense at least.
[+] [-] akira2501|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kypro|2 years ago|reply
If people are going out less, say because it's winter and they've been feeling unwell then we should expect CRP levels to be higher. We should probably also expect social media use while people are at home is probably going to be higher than when they're outside in the sun.
The idea that an inflammatory marker would actually drive people to seek out social media seems highly suspect to me. Do people with cancer develop an insatiable urge to use social media?
[+] [-] captainbland|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eshack94|2 years ago|reply
What a terrible PR release written by a non-scientist ("News Content Manager") for clicks and hype and zero critical thinking. The worst part is, they didn't even include a link to the full study in the press release.
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] golemotron|2 years ago|reply
It would be interesting to see if introverts have lower inflammation in general. Sociality could be a disease condition.
[+] [-] theptip|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomohawk|2 years ago|reply