Thanks, as always, Colin! Do you think there is, or could become, a way of testing every individual for cortisol and other hormone levels, to determine whether their problem is with attitude or rather crippling stress? It seems like every conversation must start here, right?
Thank you Norman. I had to scurry off and read up about testing. So, I may be mistaken! But for sure you have hit on the exact ethical and practical dilemma this conversation leads to.
On one hand, the technology exists. We can absolutely test for cortisol through saliva, blood, or urine. In a clinical setting, this is done to diagnose conditions such as Cushing's or Addison's disease.
However, using it as a universal test to distinguish 'attitude' from 'stress' runs into a few major challenges:
A person's cortisol level fluctuates dramatically throughout the day (it's naturally highest in the morning) and spikes in response to everyday things like coffee, exercise, or a stressful meeting. A single test is often misleading without a huge amount of context.
The 'attitude' (a feeling of helplessness, a fixed mindset, a lack of agency) is often what causes the 'crippling stress' (the chronic release of cortisol). They aren't two separate problems, but a feedback loop. High cortisol is the biological symptom of a psychological state interacting with an environment.
Your final point is exactly right, the conversation must start here. But perhaps the conversation itself, grounded in trust and psychological safety, is the most effective 'test.' Instead of starting with a saliva swab, we might start with questions like: 'What does your workload feel like?' 'Do you feel you have the agency to change things?' 'What are the stressors you're facing that I might not be seeing?'
So I think you're 100% right that we need a 'test,' but the most reliable one might be less about hormones and more about creating an environment where people can speak honestly about their burdens without fear of being judged.
Perhaps you are already aware of his research. If not you may be interested.
Last week, I saw Janne Miettinen speak at the Cycles Conference in NYC about hormones like you are suggesting, but in genrational cycles. Janne was previously an interviewee in Strauss and Howe's work. His research has seen hormonal patterns over generations. This, in combination with Haidts work gives more fuel for the nature-nuture conversation. I am not a scientist or familiar with how the hormone levels are tested or recorded, but his research and citations are public and linked below and I found it intriguing.
Here is a conversation Janne had previously with Dr Richard Smith of Foundation for the Study of Cycles, where they speak about the same research he shared at the conference.
Thank you for this Christian, t's a fascinating and very relevant recommendation. The link between generational cycles and hormonal patterns is a perfect macro-level extension of what the essay needs to take it to the next level about individual stress.
I agree entire generations can be biologically imprinted by the historical moments they are born into, which adds a compelling 'nature' component to what we often see as 'nurture.' This reinforces the idea that we can't separate our psychology from our biology, whether we're looking at one person or an entire society. I appreciate you sharing the link; I'm very interested to learn more about his research. Will watch the video and read the research today.
I couldn't agree more JK. You have once again perfectly articulated what feels like the most crucial next step: moving these ideas from individual insight into a core part of our collective education.
The concept of 'Being Human' as a third pillar alongside Numeracy and Literacy is brilliant. It's exactly the framework we need. An education that doesn't just teach us how to think, but how we think, including our built-in fallacies, our relationship with control, and the mechanics of mindset, would be revolutionary. It would be a direct investment in the psychological sovereignty of the next generation.
This curriculum is essentially what educators call Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), but I think your framing of 'Being Human' is more powerful and profound.
Your observation about seeing defeated people is heartbreaking but true. It feels like we have equipped generations with technical skills but failed to teach them how to manage their own inner world. Your proposal is the perfect antidote. Thank you for extending the conversation in such a vital direction.
Thanks, as always, Colin! Do you think there is, or could become, a way of testing every individual for cortisol and other hormone levels, to determine whether their problem is with attitude or rather crippling stress? It seems like every conversation must start here, right?
Thank you Norman. I had to scurry off and read up about testing. So, I may be mistaken! But for sure you have hit on the exact ethical and practical dilemma this conversation leads to.
On one hand, the technology exists. We can absolutely test for cortisol through saliva, blood, or urine. In a clinical setting, this is done to diagnose conditions such as Cushing's or Addison's disease.
However, using it as a universal test to distinguish 'attitude' from 'stress' runs into a few major challenges:
A person's cortisol level fluctuates dramatically throughout the day (it's naturally highest in the morning) and spikes in response to everyday things like coffee, exercise, or a stressful meeting. A single test is often misleading without a huge amount of context.
The 'attitude' (a feeling of helplessness, a fixed mindset, a lack of agency) is often what causes the 'crippling stress' (the chronic release of cortisol). They aren't two separate problems, but a feedback loop. High cortisol is the biological symptom of a psychological state interacting with an environment.
Your final point is exactly right, the conversation must start here. But perhaps the conversation itself, grounded in trust and psychological safety, is the most effective 'test.' Instead of starting with a saliva swab, we might start with questions like: 'What does your workload feel like?' 'Do you feel you have the agency to change things?' 'What are the stressors you're facing that I might not be seeing?'
So I think you're 100% right that we need a 'test,' but the most reliable one might be less about hormones and more about creating an environment where people can speak honestly about their burdens without fear of being judged.
I was not aware but will check this out. Thank you!
Perhaps you are already aware of his research. If not you may be interested.
Last week, I saw Janne Miettinen speak at the Cycles Conference in NYC about hormones like you are suggesting, but in genrational cycles. Janne was previously an interviewee in Strauss and Howe's work. His research has seen hormonal patterns over generations. This, in combination with Haidts work gives more fuel for the nature-nuture conversation. I am not a scientist or familiar with how the hormone levels are tested or recorded, but his research and citations are public and linked below and I found it intriguing.
Here is a conversation Janne had previously with Dr Richard Smith of Foundation for the Study of Cycles, where they speak about the same research he shared at the conference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFqT3qtm6nA&t=4260s
And here is his research:
https://jannemiettinen.fi/FourthTurning/
Thank you for this Christian, t's a fascinating and very relevant recommendation. The link between generational cycles and hormonal patterns is a perfect macro-level extension of what the essay needs to take it to the next level about individual stress.
I agree entire generations can be biologically imprinted by the historical moments they are born into, which adds a compelling 'nature' component to what we often see as 'nurture.' This reinforces the idea that we can't separate our psychology from our biology, whether we're looking at one person or an entire society. I appreciate you sharing the link; I'm very interested to learn more about his research. Will watch the video and read the research today.
We should probably refocus our education systems to teach fewer subjects, but teach them better. Off the cuff, three subjects would seem important:
Numeracy
Literacy
Being Human
That last one would include learning about human cognitive fallacies alongside concepts like those presented here about the locus of control.
Everywhere I look, I see defeated people who have resigned themselves to failure.
You can do something. You can control many things in your life if you have the right attitude.
I couldn't agree more JK. You have once again perfectly articulated what feels like the most crucial next step: moving these ideas from individual insight into a core part of our collective education.
The concept of 'Being Human' as a third pillar alongside Numeracy and Literacy is brilliant. It's exactly the framework we need. An education that doesn't just teach us how to think, but how we think, including our built-in fallacies, our relationship with control, and the mechanics of mindset, would be revolutionary. It would be a direct investment in the psychological sovereignty of the next generation.
This curriculum is essentially what educators call Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), but I think your framing of 'Being Human' is more powerful and profound.
Your observation about seeing defeated people is heartbreaking but true. It feels like we have equipped generations with technical skills but failed to teach them how to manage their own inner world. Your proposal is the perfect antidote. Thank you for extending the conversation in such a vital direction.