Another study in support of Dr. Joe’s Cure for Everything (see also these posts):
Numerous studies have noticed that loneliness and social isolation are associated with cognitive decline in later life; however, these analyses do not often consider one of the most intimate types of social activity: sex.
What’s more, some experts think that a lack of social activity is a repercussion of cognitive decline and not a cause of it.
Nevertheless, the models that Shena and Liub ran in their study suggest that the link between sex and cognitive health does not go both ways.
In other words, they found better cognition was not predictive of sexual activity five years on.
…
Shena and Liub have put forward several explanations for their results.
First, sex often involves physical exercise, which means improved cognitive performance may be due to improved cardiovascular health, which, in turn, can increase blood flow to the brain and reduce inflammation.
Sex is also known to reduce stress, and stress is thought to prevent the neuronal growth in some parts of the brain associated with memory.
Lastly, sex may improve cognitive function through the release of dopamine, which is a neurotransmitter linked to improved memory.
There have been lots of studies showing correlation between sexual activity and various aspects of better health. This is the first one I have seen that supports sexual activity being a causation of better cognitive health.
This post was motivated by Archer who suggests Dr. Joe’s Cure For Everything could fix the entire country. The country could sure use some improved cognitive function.
Do your patriotic duty.
Maybe it’s all evolutionary. I mean, what does nature care about you when you can no longer produce children?
I’ve had very similar thoughts. I don’t know the answer.
Why apply that to only aged child-bearing people? What does nature care about you if, by inclination, practice or defect, you cannot or will not produce the next generation of the species?
For the aged, gay/lesbian, sterile, where is the evolutionary role in the continuance of the species? Well, the sprogs don’t come out fully baked. They’re absolutely useless for 2-5 years, minimally useful for a few year beyond that, and then they start having some kind of utility until their early adulthood. The kids need support. So, all the non-reproducers contribute to the species by working to maintain a world conducive to the kids growing up into their role of running in the human race, even if those non-reproducers’ part is to stand at the sidelines and serving orange wedges or being security.
Now, non-productive non-reproducers, evolution has no role for. Net drag on the species, strictly from the evolutionary point of view.
In normal times, even with a few individuals that have removed themselves from reproduction, the average person is quite fertile enough to maintain the population, or even increase it if at least half of each generation manages to reach breeding age.
But when times get really bad, a kid that’s got a father and a childless uncle both looking after him or her has a much better chance of surviving. A childless aunt would help, too. So I figure that evolution has produced a certain percentage of gay men and women as disaster insurance.