 All right. So in my first lecture, I talked about embranement and how culture may get under the skin in this upper part of your physical body, namely neuroscience and how brain may be affected. Second part, I'd like to discuss the body, how cultural environment might be links to basically well-being of your body. Mostly focusing on biological molecular well-being, and in the recent years, inspired by the same guy who does this business, Steve Cole, both Carol and I got into this whole thing almost separately without knowing what each other was doing. But that really introduced me into this extremely interesting expanding field of research on biological well-being. At the same time, I have been long involved in big survey projects in the United States called Midlife in the United States, and Mayumi Karasawa and I, among several other people, try to duplicate the same survey in Japan. So now it's called Midlife in Japan, Mija, and both surveys were very extensive, but very interesting. Now it's longitudinal, but more important at least to me, we drew blood. So out of blood, you can isolate some pro-inflammatory markers, one already Carol mentioned, interlooking sex, CRP, C-reactive protein, and so on. So this really opened up a big window into interconnection between biological health and social-cultural variables. So in my second hour, I'd like to give you some preliminary findings from this. So particularly, I'd like to focus on personality and the extent to which different personality traits might be related to biological health. I'd like to focus on neuroticism and conscientiousness, mainly because those two personality characteristics are the ones that are believed to be highly, highly relevant to health in the contemporary literature. I'd like to discuss some future prospects. Now, do you recognize her? Of course. She's a Maggard mead, and she was one of the founders of the entire field of culture and personality. Back then, they are conceptualizing, is to postulate the culture as personality-lit watch. So basically, there's some kind of isomorphism. So different cultures emphasize extra version, different cultures may emphasize something else and so on. As it turned out, Macrae and Costa developed extremely extensive questionnaire to measure those five or so traits, which are believed to be cross-culturally common these days. Actually, you can get fairly decent evidence that those five are more or less common. You have to add something, you have to subtract something from time to time. But we talked about cognitive approach just a moment ago, toward the end of my talk. For a long time, I was extremely skeptic about measurement of personality with questionnaires, but now those measurement appears to work. Given this measurement, Macrae and Costa have shown that there's a fairly systematic profile of five traits across different cultures. Five traits being, what was A? Of course, agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to change. Now, what I'd like to discuss is somewhat different from this. What I'd like to discuss is relationship, correlation, association between those personality traits and health. If you're neurotic, are you unhealthy? Or if you are conscientious, do you go to the gym often enough to keep yourself well enough? Those are the questions I want to ask. Interesting question is whether expansion of the field of this research cross-culturally, maybe justified or in other words, whatever we know today may depends importantly on the subject populations we typically test. Namely, Caucasian-American middle class possibly individuals in many Western countries, including US Canada and some Western European countries. So, let me start with neuroticism. Neuroticism is a global, oh, by the way, I'm a social psychologist, and I was trained not to believe anything like stable personality trait. Now, given this premise, there's nothing like personality trait, it's very hard to believe that there's any, I mean, it seems so ridiculous to use several items to measure anything like this. Now, one thing I learned is that sometimes empathy works. So, you try to empathize with or take perspective of folks who really believe that personality exists. And then look at this, well, this could work. There's been some personal transformation in over the last several years. Initially, I was extremely skeptic because I didn't really believe any systematic, dispositional differences. But now, after a good number of years, I began to think that there might be something. So, today, you really have to listen to my talk with this mindset that personality probably would exist. You can challenge that assumption, just to keep it to yourself till the end of my talk. And just I want you to see what you can see when you start with this kind of premise. You can be skeptical and you can do so, and please do so after having listened to me. All right, so neuroticism is a global trait that links to negative affectivity. And this is really consistent, it links to bad health, especially when health is measured in self-report indicators. Are you healthy? Well, if you're neurotic, you say no, no, okay? Or major chronic conditions, why don't you check all the problems that you have? Neurotic people tend to check more. So, this kind of evidence is used to show that neuroticism is very bad on your health. Now, interestingly, in the recent years, oh, by the way, here's an authoritative review by Friedman, Howard Friedman is a big name in this field. And he says the following, assumptions that neuroticism leads to disease have existed since ancient medicine with excessive melancholic and flagmatic humor is believed to cause depression, cancer, rheumatism, fevers, and other disease. Now, I think this belief still exists. And as long as you use self-report, evidence is very solid and strong. However, interestingly, when you use some major of biological health, like interleukin sex, CRP, evidence become very, very fragile, very fragile. And that's where we started our investigation. And our idea was fairly straightforward. The idea is that, well, sometimes, neuroticism should be good. Otherwise, neuroticism must have been eliminated. There must be some adaptive value of some sort. And in fact, you have a wonderful car and you have a wonderful highway like Germans do. You'd better be a little bit neurotic before driving your car on a wonderful highway because otherwise, you may be killed. And very much likewise, social world may be a dangerous place. There may be lots of land mines. And, well, some degree of anxiety, some degree of cautiousness, some degree of negative orientation could be extremely adaptive. Now, well, question is exactly when and for what kind of people this adaptiveness of neuroticism may come out? And we propose that something like behavioral adjustment may be very important. By behavioral adjustment, I mean your tendency to flexibly adjust your behavior depending on the environmental contingencies. So if you are speaking to your professor, you may change your behavior a little bit, even though you may believe some kind of equality in Italianism, but better to be a little polite. Or just a moment, you said something. You realize that you end up saying something you didn't have to say. Better be careful and so that you can preempt your problem. So neuroticism could be very useful and could potentially be very adaptive as long as you are willing and also capable of making an adjustment. For cultural, social, and possibly dispositional reasons, some people may be unwilling. That's where my talk in the first hour could be relevant because previous research have shown that there's a fairly systematic cross-cultural difference such that this adjustment tendency tend to be higher among Asian folks as compared to Caucasian Americans. And of course, given what I said in the morning, could be true that rice growing regions might show even greater adjustment, but we don't know, there's no evidence at this point. So, well, we try to measure this behavioral adjustment and see if the correlation between neuroticism and the biological health may be moderated in some way. And we try to see if this might help us understand any potential cross-cultural variation in the association between neuroticism and the biological health. So, generally, we believe, literature believes that neuroticism is unhealthy. Evidence is weak, there might be some systematic cultural difference. Question one, to the extent that there's a cultural difference might be the case that behavioral adjustment might have some effects. So, this is our way to measure behavioral adjustment. So, basically, subjects need to respond by agreeing or disagreeing with those items. I usually follow the opinion of people I can respect. Some are social like this. Some others are less social. Once something happened, I try to adjust myself to it because it's difficult to change it myself. It is useless to try to change what's going to happen in life because it's impossible to predict it. So, these sentences can be interpreted in a very different way, but our intent was to measure the extent to which, you know, just forget about what you really want to do. Just try to be flexible. Try to adjust to the environmental contingencies. So, that was the intent of the scale. Now, how about sample? This is two samples, one Midas sample and two, Mija sample. This is coming from European Americans. So, that's a random sample, random sample. So, very tiny proportion of the people are non-European heritage descent people. So, to maximize the cultural contrast, we focused on 976 Caucasian Americans. Again, that's based on demographic information. 382 residents in Tokyo, fairly comparable in terms of age, social class, educational background, proportion of sex, gender, that's our sample. As I mentioned to you, we drew blood from these groups of people out of which we extracted some biomarkers as I mentioned to you. And in this survey, we measured neuroticism just by examining response to characterization of the self in terms of those trade adjectives. So, worrying, nervous, moody, and calm. That's reverse coded. And you can see why you really have to believe that there's a personality. You know, you just look at this and you are skeptical about the presence of personality. You may say, oh my gosh, what is that? However, as it turned out, data is very, very systematic that makes me feel that there's me something like personality. So, out of the blood, we assessed interlucent sex, C-reactive protein. Those are the measures of inflammation. Well, inflammation essentially is a neurobiological process that happened primarily in blood vessel initially because those substance need to be transported through blood to where the damage was done. Injury happens, right? Now, when the injury happens for real reason like knife is hitting your skin, this is very effective and there's obvious biological adaptation. However, as it turned out, our immune system is set up in such a way that when you anticipate some physical injury, this system get activated. And even more tragically, we humans seem to have symbolic self as well as physical self and in fact, when there's a prospect of injury to your soul, inflammation system can get activated. So essentially it's kind of many people, including Steve Cole, have now demonstrated lots of factors of social and personal adversity do activate series of gene expression that eventually leads to production of those substances which indicate inflammation. Now, inflammation cannot go away because your social threat is with you. So if your boss is horrible, I'm sorry, you have to go back on the next day. So what that means, that inflammation responses which are designed initially to kill external organism, in this case bacteria, can turn on you to begin to cause harm on your system. So clearly initially systemic problem begin to happen in cardiovascular system, that's how inflammation responses are transported. So that's reason why we measured blood pressure as well as amount essentially of bad cholesterol. So those two indicators of the health of cardiovascular system. Now, this is simply correlations among those four biomarkers. And what's simply interesting is that those measures correlate very well, reasonably well. And if you carry out principle component analysis, there's a single factor. So that's summary index I'm going to discuss, but all results I'm going to discuss today happen more or less in each one of those four. Simply results become much more robust if you collapse those four indicators, as you might expect. So here's the initial results. This is interesting. Here, this is a factor score of, you know, extent of inflammation and cardiovascular problem. So higher number is biological health risk. Here we put the neuroticism, and here one standard deviation high or low in behavioral adjustment. And what you see is very interestingly, here there's a fairly robust correlation such that, in fact, if anything, neuroticism is correlated with reduced biological health risk. So, you know, neurotic people seem to be healthier. However, for those folks who are relatively low in behavioral adjustment, that the effects tend to be reversed. Now, in the meanwhile, there was little cultural difference in neuroticism. However, there's fairly sizable cultural difference in behavioral adjustment, so that behavioral adjustment tend to be higher among Japanese, lower among Americans. Makes sense? Now, you combine those two pieces of information, could be the case that neuroticism, neurotic Japanese are healthier and neurotic Americans are less healthy. Well, you might expect that, and that's, here's the data we got. Here, I'm showing the data in different way. Here, neuroticism, here Japanese, here European Americans, my data sample, here media sample, among Japanese, if anything, neuroticism is associated with better biological health. And for among Americans, there was no effect. Now, this group is pretty big, like 1,000 people, and there's massive individual difference, obviously. So, some Americans are more like Japanese, some sizable minority of Americans are really refusing to adjust. You know, I really want to do what I want to, adjusting to the environment, that's no, that's not what you want to do. They are very strong in the belief against adjustment, and if you isolate those individuals, there's fairly strong evidence indicating that neuroticism protect bad health in biological level. Make sense? So, what I, yeah, go ahead, please. Because you're adjusting according to standard deviation, and I was wondering whether the groups are too comparable, or whether they do they open up? Oh, yeah, oh, but, well, yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't say, neuroticism, individual difference is massive, and mean score for the two groups is virtually very similar. So, there's tremendous overlap. The same applies to adjustment as well, even though in this case, mean score is substantially higher among Japanese than among Americans. So, what that means is that relatively more Japanese are represented here, relatively more Americans are represented here, okay? And by the way, there's massive cultural difference so that Japanese are healthier. Now, of course, this can be anything, right? Maybe bluefish, maybe rice, maybe less butter, maybe less red meat, or maybe something else. We don't know. But above and beyond that, there's very systematic relationship between neuroticism and better health among Japanese group, in part because of this. And among this group, there's no effect, except if you isolate people who are very low in behavioral adjustment, graph goes like this. Is it clear enough? So, we are very excited about it because neuroticism usually is believed to be very bad on your health. And for one thing, we didn't find much evidence on this, except for fairly sizable, still minority of American folks who are very low in adjustment. For the rest of the people, neuroticism appears to be adaptive, especially among Japanese. Now, here really, well, right now, this old desk is fairly preliminary, but well, what was I going to say? Oh yeah, how about subjective health and well-being? As I mentioned to you, when you test subjective well-being or subjective health, neuroticism is always a big predictor of bad health. Now, it's very interesting, neuroticism at biological level seem to be a predictor of better health, especially among Japanese. Even among Japanese, neurotic Japanese are saying that they are not healthy. Why is that? Well, one possibility, simply this could be an artifact of two self-report majors being asked. Health is good, neuroticism is bad, so for that reason alone, those two may be correlated negatively, but at the same time, if you really believe that neuroticism is good because you are vigilant of bad things and to the extent that you can handle some threat that you can identify, this can improve your life circumstances. You can avoid landmine, you can avoid some social disaster, you can avoid some traffic accident and so on, and then there might be some real value or some real truth in subjective experience of bad health among neurotic individuals. So, here Confucius saying, our great glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. So, falling in and by itself is not bad, which I mean metaphorically what neuroticism does, just highlighting threat, highlighting potential problems. As long as you can handle it, neuroticism can eventually lead to better outcome. Yeah, good. Wonderful, the age, the age. Is that an age? He did. Mean age is about 55, 57. Age range is like 38, all the way up to 75. Okay, show that these are the chronic nucleus dependent people, people who are using chronic nucleus dependent strategies. In other words, there's a relationship in North America between neuroticism, chronic nucleus and then atrophilipicampus, which is a predictor of who's gonna get Alzheimer's disease. But that can't be true in older Japanese, because older Japanese, they all use their hippocampus. They don't use their chronic nucleus. Well, how do you know that all the Japanese use? No, we did a study. It was a simple sample. Oh, I see. Oh, interesting, interesting. We tested Japanese, we tested Chinese, we get the same effect you talked about with the young Japanese. That's very interesting. Let me move on and share with you some data. I have some brain data, very preliminary. And here, this is very early study by Brian Knudsen, a neuroscientist. They did this very interesting, very simple-minded research, examining the relationship between neuroticism and the brain volume. And basically, here's a quote from their paper, but essentially they believe that neuroticism increase stress. Stress produce cortisol. Cortisol destroys brain. They didn't quite say it, but essentially cortisol can degenerate neurons, resulting in smaller brain volume. Now, is there any evidence for it? Here's their data. This is old data, almost 15 years ago. Here, neuroticism, and this is brain ratio, meaning that ratio of gray matter and everything else. So that's what they studied. And there's a systematic decrease of brain volume as a function of neuroticism. Where is that? Which population? Oh, Americans. See, I would not believe that these data would replicate in Japanese, because we also have data. I'm going to show you. I'm going to show you somewhere. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, so now, yeah. So this is unpublished. Oh, actually, we just submit this paper yesterday. If you happen to be a reviewer. Here's Japanese data. Look at this. This is neuroticism, and this is the same major cortical volume. Neurotic Japanese have bigger brain. And here's, this is Knudsen's data, so just the opposite. Now, Japanese data is not really ultra strong, super strong in this case, because brain becomes smaller, unfortunately, as a function of age. As a function of age, neuroticism increases. So you have to control for, well, many confounds, including age, and once you control for them, Japanese effects go away. However, even when you do this, one particular region survives. This surgical attack on the robustness of the effects. And that's here. This is a right dosilateral prefrontal cortex, which is associated typically with self-regulation. So at least this is consistent with the idea that neurotic Japanese recruit some self-regulatory capacities on the daily basis and again and again with the effects on some control region of the brain. Now, one more really recent data. Now, Midas Project has a neuroimaging component so that they have the same structural imaging data. So we tried to see if we could duplicate this Brian Cunison's data. And here we have about 130 individuals. And by the way, this is a very peculiar sample. So this is based on both white Americans and some very tiny group of black Americans. In all the other analysis, we homogenized for the purpose of maximizing the effects, but in this case, no choice because sample is small enough so that we needed to include everybody. And maybe that's a good thing, you know? Just we had to do it and we used the same analysis and we didn't replicate Cunison's result, no correlation at all. However, given our Japanese results, we had reason to suspect that somewhere here, control region of the brain might be related to neuroticism even when total brain volume had nothing to do with neuroticism. And here's what we got. This is whole brain analysis and those regions are systematically associated with neuroticism in inverse direction. So more neurotic people show this brain volume in those regions and here, those are actually prefrontal cortex and here. So, oh yeah, here. This is, again, effect is subtle but this correlation is significant. So this is only here. You know, it's very interesting. I'm very happy that you are doing something like this. Japanese results are here, right-hand side, same region, those are actually prefrontal cortex. As a function of neuroticism, this region seemed to increase among Japanese. Here, just a, you know, contralateral side, opposite side, but same region, those are actually prefrontal cortex. Among American sample, this region seemed to decrease as a function of neuroticism. So, obviously, this is very preliminary. I hope we can discuss a bit more but I take this finding to be consistent with the notion that neuroticism can be adaptive as long as you exercise some self-regulatory effort, which we called adjustment in early work but given this result, that could be a little bit more general. We don't know at this point but what's very interesting in the context of this cultural neuroscience seminar is that neuroticism, presumably, that's kind of universal, at least cross-culturally common dispositional characteristics. Now, does this have any inherent effects on your biological health? No, you really have to take cultural context into account before making systematic prediction and just I found your pathway analysis seems very intriguing so I want to learn a bit more later. Now, let me move on to conscientiousness. I have 20 minutes, okay, conscientiousness. And again, this is very, very interesting story at least in my mind. What is conscientiousness? That's a global trait related to diligence, industriousness, industriousness and persistence, responsibility. Those are kind of terms. Synonyms of those are being used to measure this personality trait. And again, you have to start with the assumption that there's a systematic pattern of behaviors which you try to measure with those things, okay? Otherwise, this seems like a joke. You know, those four words or something could mean anything beyond those words which kind of, I did have that kind of attitude. I didn't believe this whole research but now just a switcher perspective there's something real behind those things and then data being into emerge in some intriguing way. So again, here Howard Friedman, authoritative review. Here's what he says, perhaps the most exciting recent discovery to emerge in the area of personality, well-being and health is a lifelong importance of conscientiousness. Did you know that? You know, you have to be conscientious to make it to graduate school. Individuals who are conscientious that is prudent, dependable, well-organized and persistent, stay healthier, thrive and live longer. And that is true, conscientiousness is a very good protector of longevity and conscientiousness in this case is a very good protector of self-report health as well as biological health among humanity as represented by Westerners, right? All right, now, look at this. Do you know who this is? I'm sure you are not. Here, Miwa, Miwa Sado. Sado is a family name, Miwa is a fast name. She was a journalist for NHK, that's a national broadcast station in Japan. And very sadly, she was found dead in her Tokyo house. This is already a few years ago. And what is that? Well, basically that's a congestive heart failure, some cardiovascular problem. And as it turned out, she worked so hard. Her overtime approached 160 hours in one month preceding her death. 160 hours, can you believe? You end up working eight hours more or even more on every working day. And Karoshi became a very, very, I don't know, sensational time in Japan in the recent years because in one estimate, every year, about 200 people or more die for this reason. That's just amazing. And of course, once you have one death, there are lots of problems behind it. And so anyway, so Karoshi is very common in Japan. And also as it turned out, it's very common in East Asian countries, including China and Korea, for sure. Taiwan, I don't know, but probably it's common. Now, is she conscientious? She is, you know, she's extremely conscientious. She's responsible, she's beautiful, she's persistent, so much so, so that she end up working so hard to the detriment of her well-being. So we wanted to use Midas Media sample to test some analysis about conscientiousness. You know, conscientiousness may increase conformity or, you know, obligation or some norm of violence, motivate norm congruence behavior. However, norms vary systematically across different ethnic groups, cultural groups, so that if the norm emphasize individual well-being, that's fine. You know, your soul is in your body, you really have to take care of yourself. That's one, you know, important message of individualism. You have to take care of yourself, otherwise, God may not help you in the end, okay? So that's one cultural context. Another cultural context really put lots of privilege priority on social well-being, social welfare, social well-being. So collective duty, collective obligation and individual well-being, that could be important, but that's secondary, relatively speaking, to collective, societal well-being. Now, why don't you imagine that you are extremely conscientious. In one culture, you are dutifully go to gym, you are dutifully have enough sleep, you are dutifully doing X and Y just to maintain your body. Of course, you become healthier, probably. That's what we know from the current literature. However, if you happen to find yourself in a duty-oriented cultural context, not necessarily, again, it's an interesting question. Is that cognitive or social structural? I would say both. You know, simply social institutional norms are constructed in such a way that there's a, almost a forceful obligation to social duties in many companies, in Japan, China, and so on. And maybe it's important that we are testing a real adult here, because college life is something else. You know, you can skip classes, but not anymore after graduation. So here's a fairly straightforward idea. You know, personal well-being may be valued in one type of culture, and here are conscientious people just very conscientious about avoiding bad behavior like this, or maybe going to gym or doing something healthy, and that these do one health consequence. However, in another cultural context, like in Japan, social well-being is valued far more, and so clear priority is placed on personal, oh, clear priority is placed on collective welfare over personal welfare, so you end up walking too hard. You end up walking too hard, and conscientiousness can be, you know, really toxic in that context. So we wanted to see if there might be any evidence, and according to this hypothesis, this woman may be a victim of this cultural system. So again, we measured conscientiousness with those small number of items. You know, I hope I used the real lengthy scale, but this is all we have in big survey like this. And here's a straightforward effect of conscientiousness on biological health risk. So up, bad, down, good, and finally, what you see is that among American group Midas, we replicated the previous research showing very strong effect of conscientiousness on health so that health improves, become better as a function of conscientiousness. Among Japanese, if anything, just the opposite. Just the opposite was the case. In this research, we could identify some potential mediators. You know, basically we had lots of health related items so that we could measure the extent to which you avoid smoking, you avoid alcohol consumption, you avoid bad sleeping patterns, and so on. So we had a measure of avoidance of bad unhealthy behaviors. Now, conscientious Americans may do this kind of avoidance more and would that explain this inverse relations between conscientiousness and health? And here's a, this is a health, health compromising behaviors. Smoking, alcohol consumption, bad sleeping pattern, and here's conscientiousness. You know, more conscientious Americans, oh wait a minute, this is opposite, I'm sorry. Can this be true? Yeah, I see, this is health compromising behavior. So health compromising behavior become less as a function of conscientiousness among Americans. But interestingly, Japanese didn't show anything like this. So clearly, you know, conscientiousness works in very different way in different socio-ecological conditions. So conscientiousness can make you healthier because conscientiousness allow you to avoid bad behaviors and probably engage in healthy behaviors in cultural context where personal well-being is valued normatively. And this seems to account for this interesting correlation, association between conscientiousness and better health. How about Japanese? Well, here we have those measures of social obligation, particularly family obligation and obligation to work. As it turned out, obligation to public and community had nothing to do with it. So we use those items to measure the extent of social obligation, so prediction is true that conscientious people carry out more obligation. More obligation you do, you become less healthy. Is this particularly true among Japanese as compared to European Americans? As it turned out, the answer to it is complicated. Well, first of all, conscientiousness protected social obligation in both cultures. That kind of makes sense. You know, if you are conscientious, you try to do good things. You know, taking care of your kids or taking care of your spouse or doing good thing for your university department or maybe, you know, do something else, social duties. That's what you do. However, this is the effect of obligation on health. What's going on is that more obligation you do that seem to compromise health among Japanese, meaning that presumably you are overdoing social obligation. Among Americans, here I think all the research by John Miller, do you know who John Miller is? John is one of the pioneers in cultural psychology. She worked with Rick Schueder in India. And her major point was that social obligation is seen as a moral duty among Indians, whereas social obligation is seen as a personal choice among Americans. So if it's a personal choice, you know, obligation is a good thing. You choose to do it. However, you can always choose not to do it if you don't want to. Once social obligation begin to compromise your health. So anyway, so that's our current interpretation. And given this data, it's obvious. This mediation, you know, conscientiousness leads to social obligation which in turn compromise your health did work out very nicely. Very nicely, I mean, that's a little bad expression, you know, just extra commitment, excessive commitment to science. And that sad story illuminating dark side of Japanese culture, I have to say. However, I mean, statistically speaking, that mediation seemed to work out. Among Americans, conscientiousness leads to moral obligation, but it doesn't have much effect at all on biological health. So anyway, so let me wrap this up. This line of research is very recent and very preliminary at this point, but I found all this very, very interesting. For one thing, this pair of research may begin to challenge fat-staking for granted in the current field. And, you know, clearly, freedom and the current had in mind, human, humanity in mind when they make those statements. And so neuroticism is bad, because conscientiousness is good for your health, but this, you know, those statements depends entirely on subject populations. So I hope that our initial research begin to eliminate the limitation of the current literature and also hopefully begin to shed some light on why cultural differences might exist when they do. Manifest themselves. So in terms of conclusion, clearly biological health is very distinct from subjective health. And I completely agree with Carol that time is very ripe and extremely exciting to bring biology in into cultural research. And one really important message that's coming out of this is that biology appears to respond to threat. Clearly, I'm influenced by Steve Cole, but, well, basically, threat. That's anticipated the injury on your soul. And as I mentioned to you, this inflammation system get activated when the system anticipate some injury to your system. You know, originally, it's a physical body, but now we are sophisticated enough so that this body is replaced by or added to it, added symbolic soul, symbolic self. Now, something like, you know, this morning is just, I was thinking that you showed some very interesting data about, I forgot, I'm sorry, this is such an impolite thing to say, I forgot. But one thing I was thinking about, something like effects of negative affect, negative emotion on biological health. Well, this is related to neuroticism, but when you measure daily affect the experience, every day, maybe taking diary or some, you know, experience sampling study. And if you experience lots of negative emotion, like disgust, anger, yeah, you talked about this, something like this. When you assess subjective report of negative affect, that does protect flat and cortisol slope. That's a bad sign, that's a bad sign of stress. And also negative affect protect greater inflammation like IL-6. That's true only in Americans. As it turned out, Japanese do not seem to care. Just the effect is entirely flat. Now, we don't know exactly why, but one speculation is that this emphasis on positive affect and also emphasis on self-regulation. You know, you have to be happy. Pursuit of happiness is a great moral virtue and you have to help yourself so that you have to seek positive affect. So that's one cultural context. Then imagine that you end up experiencing lots of guilt, anger, blah, blah, blah. That's threatening, that's a threat. Because that can indicate inadequacy of the self. It's just, you know, you are incompetent. And that can be extremely strong threat to which your biological system can respond. You know, you might imagine that in the culture that emphasize in the end where bad things can happen because they do, but they can go and they can be the beginning of something better to occur if you wait long enough. That's entirely different thing. And so this threat experience may be much more among residents of those cultures where controlling emotion, experience, positive emotion is culturally sanctioned and entertained and propagated in media and possibly text books and so on which may not be true in many other cultural context. And probably there are many other things like this. And I think just to conclude, I hope it's very clear that this whole research field need to be expanded beyond weird samples by weird. The end of this is Western educated industrialized, rich democratic samples. So really this is important. And personality, you know, those are globally universal that is when you major personality something like this those are very common, but exactly how they are integrated or combined to or paired with daily life seem to depend entirely on local cultural environment and health and well-being. I think one important message my research has nothing to do with is that typically, you know in this kind of literature, health and well-being is usually used as an ultimate outcome variable. I think that's not quite right. Health and well-being is a part of the story, much larger dynamic story of cultural adaptation where sometimes you have to torture your body so as to maintain subjective well-being. Some other times you have to compromise subjective well-beings to stay afloat. And this whole dynamic, which is kind of socio-ecological system, needs to be described and analyzed to make advancement in this literature I think. So thank you so much.