Is this paper's conclusion deliberately ambivalent?

[StringJunky]

I'm interested in the author's intent in the conclusion of this paper in the last bolded line. Are they saying 'yes' optimism is good and 'yes' it is not good, or 'yes' it is good for immunity?

 

 

Conclusion

 

How optimism affects the immune system critically depends on the circumstances being examined. Under many circumstances, both dispositional optimism and specific expectancies appear to buffer the immune system from the effects of psychological stressors. However, there is sometimes a physiological cost to be paid for the optimistic strategy of engaging difficult stressors rather than disengaging and withdrawing. This physical cost is reflected in higher cortisol (Solberg Nes et al., in press) as well as lower cellular immunity (see Table 1). In turn, these costs may affect the course of diseases such as viral infection (e.g., HIV) and some types and stages of cancer for which disruptions in cortisol and cellular immunity are prognostic (Sephton and Spiegel, 2003). The varied physiological correlates of optimism remain to be demonstrated in clinical populations but may explain why the effects of optimistic beliefs on physical health indicators and outcomes are not as consistently positive as are their effects on mental health.

An important question for future research relates to this question of long-term outcomes. Although engagement results in higher stress in the short term, its consequences can reverse in the long term and lead to better outcomes (Mullen and Suls, 1982; Suls and Fletcher, 1985). A column could be added to the Figure in which long-term results show that pessimists have only temporarily avoided persistent problems, whereas optimists have solved problems to the extent that they could. Although optimism predicted lower immunity in short-term studies, it has not predicted worse physical health in the long run (null effects are the worst outcome), and this difference may reflect a balance between short-term costs and long-term benefits. As in many topic areas within psychoneuroimmunology, links among optimism, immunity, and health remain to be clearly drawn. However, it is clear that to the question of whether optimism is good or bad for immunity: The answer is ‘yes.’

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1948078/

 

[DrKrettin]

Presumably the paper has been subjected to peer review, and so we can assume that it is not just a typo. I understand it that it is deliberately ambiguous in that optimism is significant in an undefined manner.

 

My brother, a mathematician, once had some serious fight with an authority which required he fill in some questionnaire (I forget which). To the question "are you male or female?" he answered "yes". On being challenged he responded that the answer was absolutely correct, in that the question meant logically "Are you a member of the union of sets "male" and "female"?"

[CharonY]

Based on the quote I read it as both good and bad, depending on the outcome measured (short vs long term).

[StringJunky]

Thanks guys. I thought so but I had enough doubt to ask.

Edited January 7, 2017 by StringJunky