English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

I write amid the frenzy of the September campaign season, when the airways are filled with politicians saying the same thing: They are willing to sacrifice themselves, to take on the terrible burdens of power and privilege, just to help us all. Alas, these individuals seem to have a certain outdated view about the physiological correlates of leadership, and a fascinating paper in PNAS by Sherman et al. (1) emphasizes this point. Westernized humans predominately die of diseases of lifestyle and slow accumulation of damage. In trying to making sense of individual differences in health, it is easier to figure out that only the peasants who drank from a particular well came down with cholera than to identify what psychological attributes make someone more prone toward, say, cardiovascular disease. Amid this, it is clear that vulnerability to Westernized disease is sensitive to an individual’s position in a social hierarchy (2). Understanding health/hierarchy relationships was greatly distorted by a deeply flawed yet deeply influential study, namely, the report of the “executive stress syndrome.” In work in the 1950s by Brady et al. (3), pairs of monkeys were exposed to intermittent shocks. Half could press a bar to delay shocks (i.e., were “executive” monkeys), whereas the other half were passively yoked to their executive, receiving the same pattern of shocks. The executive monkeys developed ulcers at a higher rate, fostering the view of leadership, responsibility, and executive control as pathogenic (3). However, the syndrome was an artifact: In a textbook demonstration of why subjects should be randomized, it turned out that more emotionally reactive monkeys had been preselected to be the executives, making them more prone toward shock-induced ulceration (4). Careful work since then has revealed complex relationships between social dominance, physiology, and health among primates. Much of the work …

Importance of a sense of control and the physiological benefits of leadership