Reverse Sickology

C-Ville BJJ Yoga Program

2012-01-06T16:25:00.014-05:00

All. This is the sequence I'll be teaching at C-ville BJJ. Links should bring you to further guidance on each pose. Poses without links are primarily Yoga 4 Fighters poses and I can't find good web images.

Charlottesville BJJ Yoga Program

Standing Poses

3 Sun A (traditional)
3 Sun B (traditional)
Big toe pose: Step feet to hip-width, fold forward (1) grab toes; (2) grabbing behind heals; raise up
Triangle: Step out right leg to face back; Triangle; raise/pivot; other side
Raise/pivot; Triangle 2 (flat back forward fold, hands on knees) – advance adds twist; raise/pivot; other side
Raise/pivot; Side angle pose, elbow on thigh – advance hand on ground inside/outside; raise/pivot; other side
Step to front of mat
Standing Wide Angle pose – A (traditional, hands on ground), C (hands clasped behind back), and D (grabbing heals)
Return to front, forward fold/squat, crane pose (hand balance) – vinyasa to standing
Pivot right to back of mat – Side Forward Fold (Parsvo), arms clasped behind back – advance in reverse prayer; Add standing split/hand balance; Raise/pivot other side; Hand balance to press-up; vinyasa to front
Balancing – hand to big toe/knee; (1) forward; (2) open to side; (3) extend
Vinyasa to Down Dog (DD); Side kick stretch – 3 legged dog, hips open, foot in side kick – move to (half) pigeon before switching to other side; return to DD to start on other side
From DD, jump through to seated

Seated Poses

Staff pose
Seated forward fold – 3 versions
Bridge pose (purvo) – hands pointed out – feet flat or straight
Vinyasa to DD, bring right leg through to S-pose; switch
Vinyasa to Hero’s pose
Vinyasa to Staff
Head to knee (Janu)
Step up (Marichi) – hand on outside for balance, cross grab hand over foot (or full)
Twist (Marichi D/no half-lotus)
Boat Pose – 3 sets; lift between poses
Lotus/Half-lotus – both sides; include fold in advance
Back roll (10 forward/back) – holding feet
Cobbler’s pose – (1) straight back fold; (2) rounded back fold
Seated wide angle – (1) hands on shins feet; (2) each side; (3) hands reaching forward

Finishing Poses

Back bends – (1) bridge, hands clasped; (2) on head; (3) full back bend
Seated forward fold to release back bends
Shoulder stand / plow
Head stand
Lotus /cross-legged seat fold
Corpse pose

He Blinded Me With Stupidity

2011-09-07T15:29:00.003-04:00

I get so annoyed with absolutely incompetent journalists who write about science. Some are so clearly ignorant I refuse to even call them science writers. I have a student right now who used to be a journalist, and says the problem is the writers often have absolutely no training at all in science. Yeah, I can buy that.

I’m a big fan of slate.com’s XX blog, which has several great writers following gender issues. But this article is so much an indication of scientific ignorance it dismays me. The article:

Women and Science: Are Career Preferences Really Created in the Womb?

I can’t access the original research, but the author is writing about – and seriously criticizing to the extent that he calls the experiment’s design "rotten" - a press release from Penn State titled:

Sex hormones impact career choices

The researchers did a quasi-experiment, comparing pre-existing groups: Women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia and their siblings who do not have CAH. CAH is a genetic condition that results in exposure to more androgen -- a type of male sex hormone -- than is normal in utero. They found differences in career choice between those with CAH and those who do not have CAH, with those with CAH preferring more male-dominated fields than those without CAH. They suggest a relationship between exposure to androgen and career choice. Fine. The researchers describe their findings this way:

"Our results provide strong support for hormonal influences on interest in occupations characterized by working with things versus people," said Adriene M. Beltz, graduate student in psychology, working with Sheri A. Berenbaum, professor of psychology and pediatrics, Penn State.

How does the journalist critiquing the science describe the study? Basically, like an idiot:

While the researchers attribute this tendency to what amounts to a chemical effect, it seems odd to totally exclude the possibility that gendered preferences for careers might just be the product of a society built on strongly gendered expectations.

Here’s my question, idiotic journalist: Where do the authors “totally exclude” social factors affecting career choice? Anywhere? No? Then you’re lying, or you’re an idiot.

Here’s the thing. Just because a researcher argues a causal link between one variable (hormones) and another (career choice), does not mean said researcher thinks the one (hormones) is the only one (thus, “totally exclud(ing)” others) that affects the other (career choice).

This seems the silliest, simplest analogy...but appropriate. Imagine, a researcher finds a causal link between smoking and cancer. Does that mean the researcher “totally excludes” other factors that might also cause cancer? Should we criticize a researcher investigating the effects of smoking on cancer for failing to investigate the effects of asbestos on cancer? Of course not. Suggesting hormones affect career choice in no way implies social factors have no effect on career choice. And it is idiotic to suggest that is the case. Anyone claiming to be a legitimate science journalist should be embarrassed by saying such a thing.

Posted at Reverse Sickology

When They Start Falling Executions Will Commence

2011-07-11T21:47:00.006-04:00

I argue a lot. Also, I assign students to argue a lot. Not in the, “Turn off his mic” or “I have my own TV show so I’m right” sort of arguing. But in the “Let me state my position, and I’ll listen to your position” sort of way. Still, I’ll gladly argue topics with friends (or, to be honest, complete strangers) in person or online.

I’ve recently been involved in somewhat intense debates with friends about such things as abortion rights, the death of Osama Bin Laden, and the merits of Libertarianism. I've been involved in debates with relative strangers about such things as whether one can truly practice yoga while thinking the Yoga Sutras basically religious nonsense, whether Americans can brew a true pilsner, and the importance of the Vikings resigning Sidney Rice. Why all the arguing?

There’s been some controversy of late over a recent article published in Behavior & Brain Sciences surrounding the topic of argumentation. The authors argue (!) that the human ability to argue evolved not solely as a method of seeking truth* (as most philosophers would argue [!] is the reason for reason), but as a method of convincing others of their position.

If you’re still following along with this argument about reasoning (or this reasoning about argumentation), you might see how a NYT article would summarize the theory this way: Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth (subtitled, "People Argue Just To Win, Scholars Assert")

(R)esearchers are suggesting that reason evolved…to win arguments. Rationality… is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena

As would be expected, the media representation of the scientific research was, to some extent, inaccurate. One author made an attempt to clarify some of the common misconceptions. When one looks more closely at the authors’ approach, you can see that their position is that argumentation (or reasoning) exists to win debates and seek truth. How might this be the case? Quite simply. When we deal with ideas than cannot be tested empirically, we search for some other test to determine if our thinking is on the right track.

Consider a simple moral claim: It is immoral to harm others (as a moral claim, that might need clarification; but for our purpose, it will serve). We cannot run a scientific test - to metaphorically look under a microscope - to know if this idea is right (or, more accurately, wrong). So how can we test this idea? We can argue with others. We can put forth our position for the claim. We can listen to the position of others against the claim. And we can weigh the quality of the proposed arguments.

I think this is the point being made by the authors. That reason evolved to support argumentation. But also that reason evolved to seek the truth*, because in certain cases, the only way to seek truth* is to compare arguments.

This all brings me to a conclusion about arguments and reasoning: Arguing is reasoned. Ha.

*Whatever the hell 'truth' might be. Although it is true that the Vikings should re-sign Sidney Rice.

Title reference here.

On Skepticism...or what if they'd spelled Elvis's middle name correctly?

2011-05-04T11:46:00.002-04:00

So, golly, I’ve had quite a few, shall we say, contentious discussions with close friends the past couple days surrounding the (alleged) killing of OBL. I say 'alleged' because I have friends who are skeptical. Many on the internet are skeptical. I’m a strong advocate of skepticism. Some have asked me about this apparent discrepancy, my being skeptical in general yet not skeptical that OBL was just killed by the US government. What is my criteria for determining what to believe? That’s a good question, and I’m not sure I can answer it well, but I’ve some thoughts. Here they are.

First, let me say I’m talking about specific types of claims here. Not all claims by all people should be evaluated the same way. If GWB says, 'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,' or if Obama says, 'I will close Gitmo within one year,' these are not the same as my wife saying, 'Yes, honey. I came.' The criteria for being skeptical depend on the circumstances.

The point I think we all agree on is that, commonly, politicians are absolutely full of shit. Thus, the skepticism in question is not about claims in general, but claims made by government officials. When should be believe claims made by government officials? Some say they don’t believe anything the government says. I don’t believe them. Nobody doubts, for example, that there was an easter egg hunt at the white house a few weeks ago. Nobody doubted that there would be one when the announcement was made. This seems silly, of course. But it isn’t. The point is that nobody *always* believes government officials are lying. Thus, only *sometimes* do we believe government officials are lying.

The next question, as I see it, is this: Is lying random? Arbitrary? Might the government have lied about the easter egg hunt, but instead randomly lied about the killing of OBL? Of course not. This is important. If only some things are lies, and those lies are not random, that means there must be a pattern to the lies. Lies must be non-random. They are. Politicians lie when they have good reasons to lie.

This is my key point, then. Given the difficulty in examining all the available evidence surrounding government claims, it is also worthwhile to consider the *motive* behind government claims. We can argue all evidence *should* be available to the public. But it simply is not. And since it isn’t, considering evidence *AND* motive is important. Here is my take, and please join the discussion to let me know where I’m mistaken or erring in judgment/reasoning or rationalizing or biasing.

I argue we should be skeptical of a politician’s motives, and thus skeptical of his/her claims, under *ALL* of the following circumstances:

1) The claim will greatly affect the public’s perception of the politician (and thus, money and votes) – The claim could make the politician look especially good (Hey, I’ll close Gitmo next year!), or could make people agree with the politician (Hey, Iraq has WMD’s); or could prevent the politician from looking especially bad (No, I didn’t get a blowjob from that chubby girl; No I didn’t accept bribes).
AND
2) The timing of the lie is relevant (I’ll close Gitmo next year…so vote for me now!; Iraq has WMD’s…so we must go to war now!; I didn’t get a blowjob from that girl…and I’m being investigated for perjury now!; I didn’t accept bribes…and I’m being investigated for corruption now!). Some people might say this isn’t important. I disagree. What a politician says when running for office is different than what they say at other times (I understand he also signed an order to close on day 2 in office). If, for example, BO had a press conference tomorrow to announce he’ll close Gitmo in a year, we should think differently about that than when he says so during a campaign. Timing is relevant. If GWB had said Iraq had WMDs at a time he was *not* arguing for war, it would be considered differently than while he’s trying to muster support for a war.
AND
3) The politician has reason to believe s/he can get away with the lie.

I can’t imagine why a politician would lie when any of those criteria isn’t met. This is not to say some politicians haven’t lied in other circumstances, but they’re such ridiculous lies skepticism seems irrelevant (for example, when you’re found with $90K in your fridge, you lie, but maybe don’t really expect to get away with it).

With these as my general rules, I can understand/explain why I’m *not* skeptical of the claim that the US military has just killed OBL. Certainly, the claim makes Obama look good (criteria #1 is met). But why is *now* important (criteria #2)? Some have said it is election season. Really? We’re 18 months from an election, and BO’s biggest competition from the Republican side right now appears to be Donald Trump. Yes, I understand BO recently announced his re-election plans. Still, can those claiming this is about election season suggest a time that would *not* be opportune for the president? Any time this came out would be very opportune. The timing just doesn’t seem relevant.

It is criteria #3 I have the most difficulty with. It doesn’t matter how stupid we think politicians are, how could anything believe BO is so stupid he thinks he could get away with lying about this? I can only think of two alternative situations: If the US military didn’t just kill OBL, either (1) OBL is still alive, or (2) OBL has been dead a long time. I’ve heard both of these arguments. Whatever the alternative (OBL is alive or has been dead a long time), I have to imagine each of the following: (1) Some people have evidence of this, and (2) at least one of those people would like very much to damage the US’s reputation. Wouldn’t there have to be *somebody* who *CAN* prove this is all a lie, and *WOULD LIKE TO* prove this is all a lie? Every argument I’ve seen to this point that something is fishy is based largely on the idea that, if it is all true, *THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE!* But, then, mustn’t there also be evidence to the contrary, and isn’t there anybody who would like to release that evidence to make the US look bad?

I understand there are other arguments. But I’m not going to address all of them now. But I will say this: A lot of the skepticism seems to revolve around the fact that the government didn’t release, within 24 hours, all the information surrounding the events. Some available information is conflicting, or has already turned out inaccurate. How can this surprise anybody? That is standard practice…one reason we *DON’T* trust the government is because they work so hard to control the release of information. Think about the death of Pat Tillman. Think about the rescue of Jessica Lynch. The government *NEVER* releases all of the available information immediately. They want to control the narrative. I’d argue that gives us reason to be skeptical of the details, but not the basic information.

Last point, if you’ve been procrastinating enough or bored enough to read through this all: The easy part of skepticism is asking ourselves, 'Why would I believe what that person thinks/says?' The difficult part is asking ourselves, 'Why would I believe what I think?' That’s what I’m trying to ask myself here.

I get so jealous; I can't even work

2010-02-01T11:14:00.002-05:00

This is why you should never talk about nature OR nurture. You end up looking stupid. I'm a big fan of Sharon Begley - she's one of my favorite science writers. But shouldn't she know better than to view psychology in such an absolute sense that she'd allow an article be titled Sexual Infidelity: Nature or Nurture - Gender differences in what makes us jealous has nothing to do with 'caveman DNA'? Yes, she should. The article takes on the evolutionary psychology approach to sexual jealousy:

According to evolutionary psychology (the field that seeks the roots of human behavior in our Paleolithic past), men's brains are wired to become more upset by sexual infidelity, and women's to become more upset by emotional infidelity. This difference is the result of "caveman DNA" that everyone alive today inherited from our Stone Age ancestors of 100,000 years ago...

I frequently criticize the exact same issue in class. With little surprise, female students admit they'd be pretty pissed if their guy cheated physically on them, likely even more than if they cheated emotionally. I also specifically criticize the evolutionary psychology argument that rape is an evolved predisposition that all modern males share, which she nicely ripped to shreds last year. As a general rule, I agree with her criticisms of evolutionary psychology.

But to criticize evolutionary psychology is one thing. To say that evolution has "nothing to do with" modern human behaviors and that behaviors are best explained as nature OR nurture is something all psychology-types should know better than. From Freud to Skinner to today, saying "I'm right, you're wrong" has always failed in psychology.

Look how badly Begley f*cks up. In attempting to show her superior knowledge, to show that evolutionary psychology is so wrong, she comes upon a different explanation for jealousy associated with infidelity. She says,

According to "attachment theory," how you are raised leaves a lasting impression on how trusting you are in intimate relationships...Conclusion: Mars-Venus differences in jealousy are the result of attachment style and not of our caveman genes.

Why is this stupid? Because one cannot reasonably say "attachment" OR "evolution." Why not? Because attachment theory is based on evolution. The basic premise of attachment theory is that humans are biologically predisposed, as a result of evolution, to attach to caregivers in order to improve chances of survival. (Note: Yes, I'm linking to Wikipedia...I dare anyone to challenge the first line in the article: Attachment theory is a psychological, evolutionary, and ethological theory concerning relationships between humans.) John Bowlby, father of attachment theory, "defines attachment behavior as behavior that has proximity to an attachment figure as a predictable outcome and whose evolutionary function is protection of the infant from danger."

So, to say any behavior is "the result of attachment style and not of our caveman genes" makes absolutely no sense because attachment style itself is the result, IN PART, of our caveman genes. Never go with nature OR nurture. You will always fail.

Posted at Reverse Sickology

Title frome here:

FOX on the Run

2009-12-11T15:55:00.000-05:00

This study might make Glen Beck's head literally explode like that dude from Scanners. It uses a measure called the "Successful Societies Scale" which merges societal data for such things as homicide rate, teen pregnancy, teen suicide, citizens incarcerated, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, and poverty. Looking only at first world (developed, 'Westernized') democratic countries, the researcher wanted to see what variables were related to the success of societies.

So, what correlates *weakly* with unsuccessful societies? Immigration (sorry Lou Dobbs).

What correlates *strongly* with unsuccessful societies? Religiosity and rejection of evolution (sorry Fox News).

Interestingly, the U.S. is so f*cked up by being one of the most unsuccessful societies on the measure (ridiculously high on homicide rate and people incarcerated, for example) while also being the most religious, the researcher actually ran the data with and without the U.S. being included (all it did was lower the correlations a bit).

Anyway, I've always wanted to say to my Fox News loving friends: I wonder if the MSM like Fox will cover this story?!? (MSM stands for "mainstream media" - for those of you who don't watch Fox)

Posted at Reverse Sickology

Title from here (SuuWeeeet!):

I'm not an addict (maybe that's a lie)

2009-11-30T15:48:00.003-05:00

So they're giving pot to kids with ADHD. Two things. First, this is my favorite quote from the article:

Counterintuitive as it may seem, however, patients and doctors have been reporting that marijuana helps alleviate some of the symptoms, particularly the anxiety and anger that so often accompany A.D.H.D.

Anxiety and anger are not symptoms of ADHD. They might accompany ADHD, but they're not symptoms. I can understand why pot might be good for the anxiety and anger that might accompany cancer, AIDS, terminal illness, etc. Giving kids pot so they're less angry and anxious about having ADHD? Interesting.

Second, I'm a bit concerned about government-approved pot to kids. Listen, if I were a parent, and for some reason I thought pot would be good for my kid's behavior, I might want to give my kid pot. Why should I need a doctor to tell me it is okay?

Title from here: Posted at Reverse Sickology

They're All a Bunch of Nazi Conformist Cheerleaders

2009-10-19T11:29:00.001-04:00

Not sure what to make of this. Researchers were interested in whether suicides of famous people resulted in copy-cat suicides. So they created a computer simulation:

By studying the behaviour of 1000 computer 'people', pre-programmed with the rules that govern how people learn from one another, (the researcher) investigated the problem of copycat suicides to see whether suicidal behaviour in the population really does fit with sociologists' assumptions (of copy-cat suicides being common).

Evidently, the computer people were all goth and copy-catty. The researcher concluded:

The findings of the computer simulations strongly support the proposed link between the mass reporting of a prestigious celebrity's suicide and an increase in national suicide figures.

Know what? Sure, this is pretty cool. But here's where I get pissy. Based on the computer people cyber-killing themselves, the researcher proposes real social regulation:

This highlights the need for media guidelines that restrict the dissemination and glorification of suicides, as already introduced in many countries, such as Austria, Switzerland and Australia

I guess that if you believe you can "pre-program (computer people) with the rules that govern how people learn from one another" then I suppose you'd also believe you can regulate "the rules that govern how (real) people learn from one another." I, on the other hand, am less willing to generalize from computer people to real people that absolutely. But I have a suggestion - develop a computer program that governs how people pay taxes. Then tax the cyber-people to fund the regulations. I would support that.

Title from here:

Posted at Reverse Sickology

Counting Doubts on Broken Fingers

2009-10-10T18:44:00.002-04:00

This article is titled "Creationists Say Science and Bible Disprove 'Ardi' Fossil Is Evidence of Evolution." It discusses the recently published research regarding "an upright walking ape named Ardipithecus ramidus, or "Ardi" for short, who made Ethiopia her home nearly 5 million years ago." The article is about:

(A) group of researchers, many of them with advanced degrees in science...unimpressed by Ardi, who...believe (she) cannot be an ancestor of modern man for a range of reasons, including one of singular importance: God created man in one day, and evolution is a fallacy.

According to Gary Bates, CEO of Creation Ministries International, for example, they "have a different interpretation of the facts, and that is that Genesis is the real view of the creation of man." The main scientist interviewed, David Menton, an anatomist, says, "What creationists believe about human origins we get from the Bible." Ultimately he says:

Evolution is supposedly based on science, but the science does not prove what they want it to. Creationism is not based on scientific observation but on God's word. God created everything in six days, and that's it.

Listen, I've no doubt that the Bible "disproves" the scientific conclusions drawn about Ardi. If one accepts that Biblical claims trump scientific claims, that is a no-brainer. But show me one piece of information in the article, or elsewhere, regarding evidence that science "disproves" the scientific conclusions drawn from Ardi about evolution.

What bothers me a bit about the article, then, is that it is presented to somehow be about science, with worthwhile scientific commentary by "researchers, many of them with advanced degrees in science"...but there is no scientific commentary at all. Look, the unabomber was a researcher with an advanced degree in science (techincally his degree was in Math, but he held a NSF fellowship during his career). That doesn't mean that whatever he says is somehow scientic in nature.

Hell, even the anti-Evolution Family Research Council ("Defending Faith, Family, and Freedom") is all hot-and-bothered that, in their view, Ardi also was anti-gay marriage.

So let me get this straight. Ardi proves evolution is wrong. Or maybe not, but at least the Bible proves evolution is wrong. And even if that ain't quite right, God still hates fags.

Jesus titty fucking Christ.

Title from here:

Posted at Reverse Sickology

Deep like a graveyard, ripe as a peach

2009-09-29T14:49:00.002-04:00

If I were to catch someone sexually assaulting someone I love, I'd go far more medieval on his ass than chemical castration. So, it isn't that I'm philosophically opposed to this new Polish law:

Poland on Friday approved a law making chemical castration mandatory for pedophiles in some cases...pedophiles convicted of raping children under the age of 15 years or a close relative would have to undergo chemical therapy on their release from prison.

What concerns me is that we here in the U.S. have a crazy history of hysterical legal reactions to sexual assault allegations. Take for example this case of a 17-year-old girl giving a blowjob to a 15-year-old boy. The outcome of our great justice system: Found guilt of sodomy. Or this 17-year-old guy who got a consensual blowjob from a 15-year-old girl. The outcome of our great justice system: Guilty of felony aggravated child molestation, and over two years in prison before being released.

And who can forget the great outcomes of the daycare sex abuse scandals of the 1980s and 1990s, when Americans of all walks of life came to believe there was a huge, satanic cult sexually abusing children all over the country...so much so a woman could end up in prison for years when she was accused of amputating children's penises? Until a jury of my peers wouldn't convict me of such a crime until there were kids with missing cocks, I'm not sure I'd trust our justice system to castrate the right people.

As a disclaimer, I'd like to note I think our justice system is the best system there is. It is just that I know the people who make the laws, and I've met the peers who might make up my jury. I don't trust 'em.

Title from here:

Posted at Reverse Sickology

And I guess I just don't know

2009-09-28T14:31:00.001-04:00

I recently commented on research conducted in Canada finding heroin users like prescription heroin. Seems similar research was conducted in England, too:

(R)esearchers divided the 127 participants into three groups, giving one group heroin and giving the other two intravenous methadone and oral methadone. Although all three groups showed improved physical and mental health thanks to the counseling and social services offered by the clinics, the heroin-using group fared much better than the others. After half a year, three-quarters had largely stopped taking street heroin. And the number of crimes committed by those in the group dropped from 1,700 in the 30 days before the program began to 547 in the first six months of the trial.

Now, England is considering government implementation of such a treatment program:

Now, with results showing the trial succeeded in reducing street-drug use and crime among participants, Britain could soon become only the second country in Europe to institutionalize the program. That would mean permanent, state-funded heroin clinics would be set up across the country to treat the most heavily addicted people.

Fine and dandy, but why make state-funded clinics, requiring other people to pay for the user's heroin? Why not just make heroin legal? That's what they did in Portugal in 2001. Here are the results:

(B)etween 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Not only does it not increase drug use, but it would drastically decrease the number of people diagnosed with substance use disorders. Why? Because so many necessary symptoms for diagnosis are a function of the laws about drug use rather than the drug use itself. For example, one can get a DSM diagnosis of Substance Abuse with only the following symptom:

Recurrent substance-related legal problems.

So someone who gets arrested for smoking pot can get diagnosed, but I wouldn't get diagnosed for drinking alcohol - irrelevant is who uses more or any other consequence - simply that my drug of choice is legal means I can much more easily avoid that symptom.

Title from here:

Posted at Reverse Sickology

I Can Try, But I'm Not Promising

2009-09-21T14:45:00.002-04:00

So, children in the UK can get wristbands that allow them to go to the front of the line at (some) amusement parks if they're diagnosed with ADHD:

Hyperactive children do not have to wait in line at theme parks because they cannot cope with the stress of waiting. The youngsters are being given wristbands that allow them to sail past the crowds queueing for rides and other activities.

I don't necessarily have a problem with the policy, but can certainly understand the position of some teachers who are opposed to it:

'Part of having ADHD should be teaching them to live in the world as we know it,' one said...'They cannot queue jump in later life in the post office, therefore they need to be taught this.'

What concerns me is that the so-called experts are either ignorant themselves, or (more likely) using public ignorance to their advantage. For example,

Andrea Bilbow, of the ADDISS support service, said: 'Children with ADHD are very impulsive and just can't cope in a queue or when there is a delay in gratification. They can't stand and wait for an hour because there will be a nice ride at the end of it. They physically can't cope with that.'

This highlights a very common and very important misunderstanding of the diagnosis of mental conditions. The misunderstanding is this:

A diagnosis DESCRIBES behavior only. It does not EXPLAIN behavior.

The argument being put forth by the expert is that the child can't cope with delaying gratification *because* the child has ADHD. But that is an objectively inaccurate understanding of a diagnosis of ADHD, whether the DSM version or the ICD-10 version. A diagnosis descriptively labels behavior, and that is all. Thus, it is actually the opposite of what is being claimed - because the child acts impulsively, his/her behavior is labeled as ADHD. What the woman should have said is this:

'Children are diagnosed with ADHD because they are very impulsive and just don't cope in a queue or when there is a delay in gratification. They don't stand and wait for an hour...They don't cope with that.'

A child diagnosed with ADHD is diagnosed based on what he or she DOES or DOES NOT do, whether or not the child CAN do otherwise. "Can" & "Cannot" are irrelevant to diagnoses.

Title reference here:

Posted at Reverse Sickology

No liberty, no reason, no blame...

2009-09-17T14:53:00.000-04:00

The modern take on science - I just knew it wasn't my fault. Article: Tasty Foods Send Signal to Brain to Keep Eating. Opening sentence:

Can't stop eating fatty food? Blame your brain, researchers say.

Granted,

The study didn't look at humans, however. The researchers examined rodents...

But how is that important, really? I just want to be told I'm not to blame. Title reference here:

Posted at Reverse Sickology

"I Learned It By Watching You!"

2009-09-15T09:55:00.000-04:00

When I was in graduate school at FSU, I (at least) once wore a baseball cap to a meeting including faculty and students. A stats professor, who I knew well, somewhat mockingly said as I entered the room, "A good Southern male would never wear a hat indoors." I responded, "Dr. Brewer, please don't ever confuse me for a male from the southern United States." While my quip didn't go over so well in Tallahassee, Florida, I'm reminded of it when I read this article:

Rude behavior in college classrooms is often a matter of course: College students more disrespectful, professors find

I've noticed this at my college, too. Not the rudeness of college students, but instead the fact that a lot of professors are getting their undies all bunched up due to students texting, or students' clothing choices, or, basically, students not offering them enough respect. Profs I know frequently complain about the same things as those in the article:

(P)rofessors...find they must devote space in the syllabus to ask students to refrain from surfing the Web, texting or answering cell phones during a lecture. Some have to remind students that, when making a presentation, they should remove the backward baseball cap and save the bare midriff for a beach party. Others complain that students randomly leave and enter the classroom during class.

Indeed, students, like anyone else, can be rude. And I would never fault other instructors for trying to teach civility to their students or trying to structure class the way they'd like it structured. But I wonder, assuming that I might do something that helps students learn, whether it better to teach students how not to offend or how not to get offended. Face it, people get offended for the most retarded of reasons (words chosen purposefully):

People on the political right get pissed if the greeter at Walmart says "Happy Holidays" in December rather than "Merry Christmas."
People on the bat-shit-crazy right feel it okay to kill other people if they draw a cartoon that hurts their wittle feewings.
People on the left get all upset with the flag someone displays on their car.
People on the bat-shit-crazy left feel it okay to kill other people trying to cure diseases or feed the poor.

Seems to me, the only battle that might win any ground is *not* to get people not to offend, but rather to get people to fucking suck it up and take it when someone does something that disappoints you. Albert Ellis, one of my all-time favorite psychology dudes, called it rational other acceptance. Rational people recognize that other people are not always going to act in such a way that will make us happy. And we accept that. Obviously, there is stuff that shouldn't be tolerated. But I can't see backward baseball caps as part of that category. We in education are constantly bombarded with the buzzword diversity, and many throw it at their students like inflated grades. But then those same professors can't handle it when someone doesn't dress they way they want them to? Suck it up and take it. Otherwise, if we feel it appropriate to regulate clothing, it becomes very difficult to argue against bullshit like this:

Sudanese widow Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, a former journalist who last worked for the media department of the UN Mission in Sudan was charged under Article 152 of Sudanese law which imposes 40 lashes for anyone “who commits an indecent act which violates public morality or wears indecent clothing.” She was wearing a pair of trouser at a restuarant (sic) on July 3.

Obviously, rational lines have to be drawn somewhere, lest students come to class naked. But "I find it rude because it wasn't like that when I was younger" is not sufficient to draw the lines. And if we assigned to instill critical thinking skills can't see that, how can we expect anyone else to?

Heading reference here:

Posted at Reverse Sickology

Sometimes when you're on, you're really f****in' on

2009-09-07T10:55:00.003-04:00

Recently I commented on an article about childhood depression with the question, How come we can accept that some people have standard moods that fall above the norm, but not that some might fall below the norm? Seems I'm not the only one thinking about the normalcy of mood variability. This article in the most recent Scientific American suggests:

...that depression is not a malfunction, but a mental adaptation that brings certain cognitive advantages

The researchers hypothesize, with the support of a fair amount of research, that depression might have evolutionary advantages because is fosters intense, analytical thinking. For example,

Laboratory experiments indicate that depressed people are better at solving social dilemmas by better analysis of the costs and benefits of the different options that they might take.

The authors conclude by arguing:

...depression is nature’s way of telling you that you’ve got complex social problems that the mind is intent on solving. Therapies should try to encourage depressive rumination rather than try to stop it...

All of this interesting, and somewhat ironic (don't you think?), given that completely different research is beginning to show that many therapies seem to work on depression through the exact opposite of analytical thinking - the placebo effect for antidepressants is increasing drastically. Wired reports:

Some products that have been on the market for decades, like Prozac, are faltering in more recent...tests...Two comprehensive analyses of antidepressant trials have uncovered a dramatic increase in placebo response since the 1980s. One estimated that the so-called effect size (a measure of statistical significance) in placebo groups had nearly doubled over that time.

People aren't sure why the placebo effect has increased so drastically for antidepressants, but some hypothesize it has to do with, basically, fooling people into thinking they should be getting better:

In other words, one way that placebo aids recovery is by hacking the mind's ability to predict the future. We are constantly parsing the reactions of those around us—such as the tone a doctor uses to deliver a diagnosis—to generate more-accurate estimations of our fate. One of the most powerful placebogenic triggers is watching someone else experience the benefits of an alleged drug.

So if you consider what these two disparate lines of research might indicate, the outcome seems to be this: (1) Depression is (in part) the mind's way of making us thinking rationally, and (2) treatments for depression work (in part) by making us think irrationally. Excellent.

Title reference here

Posted at Reverse Sickology

Zombie says "Brains, Brains..."

2009-08-31T14:06:00.004-04:00

It's been some time since I've done as I said I would and really paid attention to the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. It turns out people get really hot and bothered when neuroscience information is used to explain human behavioral characteristics, even when the neuroscience information is irrelevant. But this article bring it back to mind, in the simplest way. It is titled "Multitasking Muddles Brains, Even When the Computer Is Off" and reports:

In several benchmark tests of focus, college students who routinely juggle many flows of information, bouncing from e-mail to web text to video to chat to phone calls, fared significantly worse than their low-multitasking peers." (According to the researcher, the tests...) are all very standard tasks in psychology...In the first, there’s lots of evidence that if people do poorly, they have trouble ignoring irrelevant information. For the second task, there are many demonstrations that this is a good reflection of people’s ability to organize things in their working memory. The third task shows how fast and readily people switch from doing one thing to another.”

Interesting research. Worth noting, they didn't measure brain activity at all. Matter of fact,

(One researcher) next plans to use brain imaging to study the neurology of multitasking...

So why title the article "Multitasking Muddles Brains"? Why not "Multitasking Muddles Attentional Focus" or something more accurate? Probably because, as noted, people get all wet and moist about brain information, even when it is unimportant.

Listen, I understand that attentional focus is functional on brain activity. So is vision (so is everything we do). You'd never hear, though, anyone say eating carrots improves brain activity due to alleged carrot effects on vision. Someone'd say eating carrots improves vision.

Posted at Reverse Sickology

Reality TV...sure it is...

2009-08-26T10:00:00.002-04:00

Back in the late '80s when I was an undergrad at University of Illinois (or, THE University of Illinois, for any of you Ohio State dorks), I had a close friend keen on going to law school who once stated proudly at a party, "L.A. Law isn't anything like real law." I called him a pompous ass; pompous because, for example, you'd never find a bartender (which I was at the time) trying to claim special knowledge by noting Cheers wasn't really what bars were like; and an ass because anyone thinking TV shows offer an accurate depiction of reality probably aren't law school material. I haven't thought about this for some time, until yesterday I came across this article, interviewing community college folk who'd screened a new sitcom called Community, about community colleges. Comments:

Howard Tineberg, English professor at Bristol Community College, in Massachusetts...(said) "Much of the cynical representation of the community college is offered through (blah, blah, blah)...I see much to be offended by in this premier episode."

And...

“Unfortunately, the pilot of ‘Community’ perpetuates stereotypes of two-year colleges (blah, blah, blah)” writes Sandie McGill Barnhouse, chair of the Two-Year College English Association (TYCA) and English professor at Rowan-Cabarrus Community College,

Wow! Does that mean Homer Simpson's job isn't an accurate depiction of work at a nuclear power plant? That hospitals aren't really like that portrayed on Scrubs? That The Office isn't much like an office? That this isn't representative of fourth grade education:

Posted at Reverse Sickology

Get These Kids Some Doctor Approved Drugs!

2009-08-24T11:16:00.002-04:00

I find it somewhat disturbing that 10% of Americans are on antidepressants:

About 10% of Americans — or 27 million people — were taking antidepressants in 2005, the last year for which data were available at the time the study was written. That's about twice the number in 1996...

Certainly, it isn't that surprising given:

During the study, spending on direct-to-consumer antidepressant ads increased from $32 million to $122 million.

Still, this other study seems off-base:

Depression in children as young as 3 is real and not just a passing grumpy mood, according to provocative new research.

Provocative indeed. What the researchers did was find a bunch of kids diagnosed as depressed, followed them longitudinally for a couple years, and found that many were still depressed. How do we know this is diagnosable depression, though, and not simply standard variance in personality? For a diagnosis of depression, one of the very most important components is that the depressive symptoms "represent a change from previous functioning." If the kids were depressed all along, how can we conclude that there was any change from previous functioning? We all know people who are significantly happier than the rest of us. Sure, they annoy the hell out of us, but we recognize that as standard human variance. How come we can accept that some people have standard moods that fall above the norm, but not that some might fall below the norm? I'm not arguing that these people shouldn't be allowed to seek assistance if they want it, but should we be making inaccurate diagnoses for that purpose?

Posted at Reverse Sickology

Study: Drug Users Like Drugs

2009-08-20T14:17:00.002-04:00

If I didn't consider Benedict Carey an excellent science writer, I'd be sure this New York Times article was an Onion parody:

The safest and most effective treatment for hard-core heroin addicts who fail to control their habit using methadone or other treatments may be (heroin), in prescription form...Canadian researchers randomly assigned about half of (226) addicts to receive methadone and the other half to receive daily injections of diacetylmorphine, the active ingredient in heroin...(the study) showed that heroin works better than methadone in this population of users, and patients will be more willing to take it...

Wow, heroin users prefer heroin. And, interestingly, heroin is "effective treatment" when prescribed by a doctor but an illicit drug when taken simply as a choice. Fascinating. That may explain this:

In an editorial with the article, Virginia Berridge of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine concluded, "The rise and fall of methods of treatment in this controversial area owe their rationale to evidence, but they also often owe more to the politics of the situation."

Posted at Reverse Sickology

"(T)o differentiate between irresistible and unresisted impulses"

2009-04-28T10:43:00.000-04:00

I've been intrigued by the media fascination with "sex addiction" for some time now. I've been waiting for someone to finally say this:

(T)he more I study it, the more sceptical I have become that sex addiction is a genuine condition...Do these (people) really have an illness that renders them incapable of resisting temptation? (...) its convenient for a bad choice to be repackaged as a disease and it's in that person's interests for the outside world sees their behaviour that way.

Not much else to say, really. The semester is ending, I've been lazy with the blog for a couple months, and I'll be away for much of the summer. But I have to point out: I keep noting how odd it is that mental illness is commonly covered in the Fashion & Style section of the New York Times. I thought that probably a weird American thing. But look, this article is also in the Life & Style section of the UK newspaper. Interestingly, under the subsections Women & Relationships. Posted at Reverse Sickology

What does "Reverse Sickology" mean? This article says is all...

2009-03-31T10:09:00.001-04:00

Life: A medical condition

(I)t seems that a new illness is invented every week, covering every potential quirk in human behaviour...Is the human condition becoming a medical condition? (snip) (I)t is estimated that 10% of US children take Ritalin to combat behaviour problems. (snip) "If you look at the American Psychiatric Association 'bible', you'll see almost every piece of human behaviour can be classified as being in some way aberrant."

Note: When I say the article "says it all" I don't necessarily mean I agree with the politics advocated in the article.

My Neurons Saw Jesus on a Grilled Cheese Sandwich

2009-03-14T16:09:00.000-04:00

I’m leafing through the current issue of Time while in the doctor’s office, and stumble upon an article on “Faith & Healing: A Forum.” It seems to be a moderated panel of three people discussing faith, science, and health. The “moderator” is often ridiculous. To one panelist: “(Y)ou are careful not to talk about humans as being hardwired for religion, because hardwiring implies a hardwirer, and science hasn't yet established that.” First, when humans are described as being hardwired, it generally refers to the fact that the brain consists of electrochemical neural circuits, and thus, talking about people being hardwired in no way implies a hardwirer. And second…Yet? Science hasn’t established a hardwirer “yet”? Science hasn’t established that the moon is made of green cheese, either. Not yet, at least. Anyway, one panelist, Richard Sloan, addresses “the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations,” which I just blogged on. He does it quite well, so I thought I’d mention it here.

TIME: (C)an't the tools of science (brain scans and the like) be used to teach us about the subjective experience of religion? Sloan: Let me ask you a different question. Would it be meaningful if we did a brain scan of someone before and after eating cheese? I don't understand the value of developing beautiful images, very appealing, aesthetic images of brain scans and people engaged in various religious experiences. I don't see the value any more than imaging people while eating cheese. TIME: We explore what the brain looks like in depressed people, in people struggling with memory issues ... Sloan: But why? To understand how the brain works so we can develop interventions to treat depression and to treat memory loss. And that's absolutely appropriate. Are there interventions that will come from [imaging religious experiences]? (…) (T)here's a seductive appeal about neuroscience explanations, that there must be something significant here because you can see it in the brain scan. We're infatuated with neuroscience because of the very beautiful images that we can see, but the real question is, What do those images tell us that's of any value, whether it's basic science or applied?

On an unrelated note, the magazine issue also has an article on one of my favorite authors, Donald Barthelme. Read my favorite story of his - “The School” - here. Buy an essay on the story because you’re too lazy to write 843 words (and hope your instructors are really stupid) here.

Emotional Brain: Rational Brain as Right Brain: _____ Brain (answer: "Left")

2009-03-10T21:01:00.000-04:00

The serotonin, dopamine, and other neurotransmitters in my brain have got me thinking that I'm going to start attending more to the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. One of my favorite types of psychology research is that which investigates the effectiveness of psychology research. Recent research has started to investigate what happens when an author throws in arbitrary brain information when explaining behaviors. In this study, for example, subjects were given poorly reasoned faux scientific articles to evaluate, with or without random pictures of a brain scan. In effect, both groups read the same nonsense, but one group had a picture of a brain included in the nonsense. Those who saw the picture of the brain thought the nonsense more convincing than those who didn’t. In this study, rather than using brain pictures, the authors included arbitrary brain words (“Hey, look, dopamine!”) and found a similar result, concluding:

Even irrelevant neuroscience information in an explanation of a psychological phenomenon may interfere with people's abilities to critically consider the underlying logic of this explanation...(N)euroscience information...irrelevant to the logic of (an) explanation...had a particularly striking effect on nonexperts' judgments of bad explanations, masking otherwise salient problems in these explanations.

What the studies indicate is that completely irrelevant brain information - words or pictures - sways people to think that an argument about behavior is better than it actually is. Which brings me to this article: Now think again: making the right decision calls for the heart as well as the head:

I once bought a pair of shoes that didn’t fit. I blame my brain. I was a victim of a dopamine rush. That pesky neurotransmitter had been primed by previous shopping highs to flood my brain with the desire to take another hit...That’s what dopamine does. It rewards successful strategies and, as soon as it finds one, it looks for more. So here’s the problem: dopamine is rational — it finds things that work and tries to do them again. But that makes you take irrational decisions.

I like the article. The article is a review of the book How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer. It does a good job highlighting research that indicates how we often make irrational decisions. But, even ignoring the basic "My stupid decisions aren't my fault" premise, I have to ask: What's with the arbitrary dopamine info? In the article, the author discusses several scientific studies, none of which involve dopamine. First, the author relates the story of Eliot, reported as a case study in Eliot Demasio’s excellent book Descartes’ Error. Eliot’s issue is not about dopamine activity, though, but is instead about structural damage to the brain. All of the other studies mentioned deal with the effects of a manipulation of the social environment on decision making – none deal with dopamine. So if none of the research in the article deals with dopamine, but the author name-drops the neurotransmitter like Eminem with Carson Daly (Carson Daly? Yeah, that’ll sustain your music career), I can only assume the author is utilizing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. The interview below, with the author of the book discussed in the "dopamine" article, is an excellent example. Seriously, did he just say, "I can feel my rational brain, my prefrontal cortex, go into overdrive..."?

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Jonah Lehrer

Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor

Rap Battle NASA Name Contest

I'm all for metacognition. But if "thinking about thinking" leads you to the conclusion that dopamine caused you to buy shoes, you might not be thinking that well about thinking. Posted at Reverse Sickology

The Uncontrollable Desire to call Addiction a Disease is a Disease

2009-03-09T16:03:00.000-04:00

I can’t come up with any other reason for such crappy argumentation being published in the Wall Street Journal. The urge to call addiction a disease has become an epidemic itself. Here’s GW Bush’s former director of the White House Office of National Drug Policy:

Substance abuse is a disease. Until recently, we failed to grasp the nature of this disease and how to reduce the suffering it causes… We have paid a high price for this confusion.

So how do we reduce the suffering caused by this disease?

The criminal justice system has become the most powerful force in the country supporting addiction treatment…

Aha. So it is a disease best treated through the criminal justice system. Perhaps we’ve been wasting our time trying to find a cure for cancer. Perhaps we should just make it illegal and see if that’ll solve it. I don’t accept the position that addiction is a disease, but if it were, wouldn’t it be better treated (as this article argues – thanks to Justin for the link) as a public health issue than a law and order issue? Can anyone name a single other disease that is best treated by the criminal justice system? Am I missing one? Wait, the author indeed argues addiction will start to be treated as a public health issue. He says:

Intervention is spreading in the health-care system with the prospect that screening for substance abuse will become as common as checking blood pressure for hypertension.

Excellent strategy. I say we start arresting those who test positive for high blood pressure and hypertension. Nip those problems in the bud. What might fascinate me most about this argument is that the author seems to believe readers will have no knowledge of history. Several times when talking about addictive drugs, he mentions alcohol. But when discussing the prospect of legalizing drugs, he says this:

No nation that has tried to avoid controlling supply has been able to stand by its permissive approach.

Isn’t that the *exact opposite* of what happened with alcohol? Didn’t we try to control supply, and then revert? Finally, he addresses an issue I mentioned recently – drug related violence in Mexico. He says,

Today there is terrible violence in Mexico. Those who carry out attacks do so with the intention of making us stop resisting them…Making it easier to produce and traffic drugs will strengthen, not weaken, these terrorists.

But this is nonsense. Yes, making it easier to produce and traffic *illegal* drugs will strengthen Mexican drug cartels. Give me a Celebrity Death Match between a Mexican drug cartel and an American/Internationl Pharmaceutical company, though, and my money’s on the Pharm company. If the drugs people wanted were legal, any US drug company could bitchslap a Mexican drug kingpin faster than you can say, “Let’s get it on.” Posted at Reverse Sickology

It isn't my fault if this post is false

2009-02-23T14:43:00.000-05:00

This article is a review of a new book on addiction. The book sounds quite interesting. Not having read it, I can only comment on the book author's perspective from the second-hand view of the author of the book review. Still, just a couple comments about the book author's perspective. He claims that most families of addicts:

"erroneously believe that willpower is their loved one’s main problem” and that this belief indicates “cultural confusion and apathy..."

So, to believe that an addict's problems are, at least in part, the result of a lack of willpower is erroneous and indicative of confusion. For it to be true that this belief is erroneous, that would require objective evidence that the problems are not a function of will power. But the issue of will power is simply the issue of free will. And the question of free will in nowhere near answered. To believe that people have free will and to consequently believe, then, that peoples' behaviors are, at least in part, the result of free will is neither accurate nor erroneous.

I understand that many in the therapeutic, psychiatric, political, etc. communities want us to believe that addiction is a medical condition like cancer, such that once we acquire it we can only be cured by paying someone with extensive skills to fix us. But it is not "true" to say that, nor is erroneous to say otherwise. It is an unanswered, and potentially unanswerable, question.

Gotta Have My Weedies

2009-02-19T19:21:00.000-05:00

A friend/colleague of mine sent two article links this morning to a group of us. The first deals with an area of interest to my friend - increased organized crime violence in Mexico. The second, from the WSJ, which might seem completely unrelated, is summarized as follows:

The nation is in a fury over the missteps of public figures like Alex Rodriguez and Tom Daschle (and Michael Phelps). Joe Queenan on why focusing on human foibles is more therapeutic than getting mad at Wall Street -- and why everyone should lighten up.

As someone who frequently seems to see patterns where none exist (could it be schizophrenia…or the DaColbert Code ?), I see a connection between the articles: Michael Phelps. Here’s where I’m seeing a connection. I quite agree with, for the most part, the author of the WSJ article. But I can’t get beyond his culturally-standard moral judgments, understood by Kohlberg for decades, based on the sadly simplistic “If it is illegal, it is wrong!” thinking. The author writes of Michael Phelps:

(He) violated an old-fashioned code of morality that we can all understand…(and) what (he) did is certainly wrong…

No doubt, what Phelps did was illegal. But on what grounds is it a “violation of a code or morality” and/or “certainly wrong”? Sure, I suppose what he did was immoral with the childlike decision that doing what is illegal is immoral and certainly wrong. Wouldn’t that mean, though, that what Rosa Parks did “violated a code of morality” and was thus “certainly wrong”? Anyone really want to defend that argument? So how does this relate to the article on violence in Mexico? Well, just last week, the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy released a report that begins:

Violence and the organized crime associated with the narcotics trade are critical problems in Latin America today. Confronted with a situation that is growing worse by the day, it is imperative to rectify the “war on drugs” strategy pursued in the region over the past 30 years.

Wow, an increase in organized crime and violence associated with drug prohibition. As an American, I find that really hard to believe! It would never happen here Seriously, when eight college students get arrested because an Olympic athlete gets photographed smoking a bong, is it hard to imagine that pot smoking might become an underground activity with an organized crime system designed to help people get away with it? Disclaimer: I’ve said many times that I’ve no interest in pot because I found my drug of choice at a very young age, and that drug is, thankfully, legal.

25 Things About Me

2009-02-12T14:38:00.000-05:00

1. I'm not a contagious disease-ridden parasite.
This article, The Evolutionary Roots of Facebook's "25 Things" Craze, looks at the social networking phenomenon from an evolutionary perspective (I suppose it is because it is Charles Darwin's Birthday?). It "explains that '25 Things' authors can be seen as 'contagious' under what's known as a 'susceptible-infected-recovered' model for the spread of disease." It says we can "(t)hink of '25 Things' authors as being contagious for one day—the day they tag a bunch of their friends." It is because of this contagion that the meme spread through Facebook.
I completed the 25 things list. But my #2 was:

2) I’m not going to tag anyone with this little game. I’m sure some “Six Degrees of Separation” rule will bring this to everyone on Facebook without a tag from me.

I may have slightly overestimated how easily these things spread through Facebook. According to the article, this was the first big Facebook meme to spread like this:

The fact that it took two-and-a-half years for a Notes-based meme to hit it big suggests long odds.

Still, it appears several of my online friends owe me one of those little "You Better Get Checked" notes, and I don't owe anyone anything. Good for me.

Hello. My name is Dennis. I buy things.

2009-02-04T13:52:00.000-05:00

I've been following this one for years. Even better than having people pay you money so you can counsel them how to not waste their money, psychiatrists are considering whether shopping addiction should be a diagnosable condition.

As spenders spend while the economy plummets, the psychiatric world is trying to decide whether compulsive buying should actually be considered a disease.

They've been testing whether anti-depressants (SSRIs) can treat shopping addiction since at least 2000.

The New York-based pharmaceutical company Forest Laboratories and Stanford University are testing a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, or S.S.R.I., on the women-who-shop-too-much population. In the study, 24 compulsive buyers are taking Celexa, already approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an antidepressant, over a 12-week period. Though the trial won't be complete until later this year, the early results look ''very promising''...

Step 1: Medicalize the behavior; Step 2: Convince people you can cure the "medical condition" with drugs; Step 3: Sell the people the drugs. Sure, this is standard. But how cool is it when you're selling the drugs to people who will buy anything ? A truly brilliant marketing campaign.

You're paid to think, Mr. Scientist.

2009-01-29T18:19:00.000-05:00

I like this article: Elevating Science, Elevating Democracy:

Science is not a monument of received Truth but something that people do to look for truth. That endeavor, which has transformed the world in the last few centuries, does indeed teach values. Those values, among others, are honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, openness, accountability and tolerance and indeed hunger for opposing points of view...It is no coincidence that these are the same qualities that make for democracy...If there is anything democracy requires and thrives on, it is the willingness to embrace debate and respect one another and the freedom to shun received wisdom. Science and democracy have always been twins.

I like it. That's all I have to say. Title reference here.

Just look at them and sigh

2009-01-28T17:21:00.000-05:00

People tell me I’d make a good dad even though I don’t really like kids. They don't know me that well. Anyway, sometimes, I admit, I get confused about how to treat a kid. Especially since you never know when other people, especially the government (“we the people”) will get involved. I’ve been thinking about the ideas brought up in these three articles for a week or so:

Article 1: Test Subjects Who Call the Scientist Mom or Dad: This article addresses parents who use their own children as research subjects. Psychologists, for example Jean Piaget, have a history of doing research on their own kids. But I’m skeptical John Watson would do this to his own kid. It really is an interesting ethical question: “'The role of the parent is to protect the child,' said Robert M. Nelson, director of the Center for Research Integrity at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. 'Once that parent becomes an investigator, it sets up an immediate potential conflict of interest. And it potentially takes the parent-child relationship and distorts it in ways that are unpredictable.'” Article 2: Trials for Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine: This one looks at a case of parents who let their kid die of diabetes while they prayed for her recovery rather than bringing her to a God Damn (pun intended) doctor: “Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor…About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds…” Article 3: Young “Adolf Hitler” and Two Sisters Removed From Home: There are few idiots I find more adorable than white supremacists. But is naming a kid "Adolf Hitler" child abuse worthy of government intervention? “A 3-year-old boy named Adolf Hitler and his two Nazi-named younger sisters were removed from their New Jersey home last week and placed in state custody, police said…(Division of Youth and Family Services) has their reasons and they normally don’t release any information, so we kind of have to go on faith with them.”

Seriously, I’ve no clue how to treat the little ones. Good thing I’ve got none.

We don't f*ck anymore, but we can really snuggle down

2009-01-21T12:33:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting article that highlights some pretty common current psychology thinking. It relates several case studies of young adults who get depressed after sex. The author, a psychiatrist (I'm quite sure), explains that he was unable to find any deep "psychological" problems for the depression:

But search as I could for a good explanation, I could find none. Though his symptoms and distress were quite real, I told him he did not have a major psychiatric problem that required treatment.

The author also notes that he is completely unaware of any evidence-based biological explanation for the depression:

Little is known about what happens in the brain during sex...The research literature is virtually silent on sex-induced depression

So the author admits he has no psychological or biological explanation for the condition. What does he do? He assumes the explanation is biological and prescribes drugs:

When physicians run through the usual treatments to no avail or find themselves, as I did, in uncharted territory with little evidence as to what to do, they can consider so-called novel treatments. Often, you design such a treatment based on your speculation about the underlying biology of the syndrome at hand. This can involve using approved drugs in situations for which they are hardly ever prescribed.

When the drugs work (he used SSRIs), at least he admits he doesn't know why:

(T)here are at least three possible reasons my patients felt better: The drug worked; it had a placebo effect; or there was a random fluctuation in symptoms — they would have improved if I had done nothing.

He does (what I'd consider) the ethical thing and suggests his patients stop the drug. They did, and in both cases...

...the symptoms came back and then abated with the drug — suggesting, based on this admittedly small sample, that the drug effect was real.

But he's wrong on that. There's no reason to rule out the placebo effect based on his observations. If it was the placebo effect when they were taking the drug the first time, it would make absolute sense that the symptoms would come back when not on the drug and be abated with the drug.
Anyway, I have to admit I like this line:

After just two weeks on an S.S.R.I., both said that while sex was less intensely pleasurable, no emotional crash followed.

Reminds me of an old song, Happy Town, by Jill Sobule (from which this title is pilfered).

My boyfriend Bob he said I made him miserable But we stayed together 'cause the sex was really good And then he packed his bags with me to happy town We don't fuck anymore but we can really snuggle down

An issue bigger than the Constitution

2009-01-16T15:54:00.000-05:00

By way of Reason.com (whose Hit & Run blog is a must read for anyone concerned with liberty) I present you this quote from an elected politician:

"I certainly respect the Constitution, but we have some issues that are much bigger than the Constitution."

The "issues that are much bigger than the Constitution" you ask?

(A) plan Tuesday that would (make) it unlawful for people to wear pants below the waistline exposing their underwear.

Ah yes...it is probably worth overturning some Constitutional rights in order to prevent that. Almost makes me proud of my Illinois politicians.

What constitutes a fidget?

2009-01-12T15:38:00.000-05:00

This great article by the great William Saletan notes that there's been a huge increase in diagnosis of ADHD among professional baseball players since rules were established requiring a diagnosis in order to take stimulants (otherwise, it is using performance enhancing drugs):

Three years ago, the league belatedly banned stimulants on the grounds that they unfairly aided players' performance. At the time, 28 players had "therapeutic use exemptions" allowing them to take drugs such as Ritalin or Adderall. "Therapeutic use" means you can justifiably use the drug because you need it for a medical condition...The number of players claiming and obtaining "therapeutic use" exemptions for stimulants nearly quadrupled from 28 to 103. The basis of their claims? They all had attention "deficit" disorder. Accordingly, they were entitled to attention-boosting drugs.

Here's my question. In order to be diagnosed with ADHD, whatever symptoms one exhibits must be present "in two or more settings (e.g., at school [or work] and at home)" and must result in "clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning." So, unless we've got a lot of pro baseball players going to school, symptoms must be present at "work" and affect "occupational functioning." It seems as though the medical condition is not being as good at baseball as you'd be without the drugs. But taking the drugs isn't "performance enhancing"? Hmmm. Title reference (for some reason?) here.

Fix me, Doc!

2009-01-07T14:55:00.000-05:00

I think this book interests me: Voluntary Madness: My Year Lost and Found in the Loony Bin. This review includes several quotes that mesh quite well with my beliefs. The author of the book appears to be addressing the current status of psychotherapy. The reviewer provides, I think, an honest assessment of therapist training (the review claims this is true of psychiatrists; I'd argue it is true of all well-trained psychotherapists):

At their best, psychiatrists are agnostic on the true nature and causes of mental illness. They are trained to think about their patients heuristically, along three dimensions: the biological, the psychological, and the social.

It is the book author's comments about the role of the client/patient in psychotherapy with which I most agree:

"[T]he vast majority of people don't want to participate in their own recovery. They are unwilling to try, even when they are given every advantage, every freedom, and an abundance of...compassion...because people—patients—are the way they are, often lazy, stubbornly self-indulgent, passive, and irresponsible...You want to be happy? You want to be well? Then put your boots on."

I like it. I must say I like it.

Let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel

2009-01-06T13:47:00.000-05:00

Not that I'm not usually fascinated with our cultural fascination with sex, but if I do manage to upkeep the blog this semester, I'll likely focus more on sex than usual. I'm teaching human sexuality this semester.
Which brings us to yet another NYT sex addiction article: Facing My Obsession, in the Flesh:

TO much of the general public, sex addiction is a punch line, a pop-psychology diagnosis or an attempt to explain away recklessness and perversion. But my sex addiction is unfortunately very real; it has cost me a job, romantic relationships, friendships and, on many days, my sanity and self-respect.

This is a fine first-person article about sex addiction, and as I've said over and over, I am not suggesting that people who exhibit behaviors with easily predictable negative consequences deserve no sympathy/empathy/whatever. But addiction cannot be said to be "very real" because it results in your doing stupid things. Addiction is defined as doing stupid things. Would anyone go to a therapist saying, "Doc, you gotta help me. I'm going to Vegas every weekend and coming back with shitloads of cash I've won. Make it stop!"? No. Someone's addicted to gambling when their gambling behavior is stupid. Stupid behaviors can't be both the cause and the effect of addiction.

Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother.*

2008-12-10T14:04:00.000-05:00

A brief comment on this article from Newsweek:

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.

What intrigued me wasn't really the article. Nothing new, really...although nicely put together. It was when I reached the end:

Due to the high volume of traffic, we have had to temporarily suspend the comments function on this story. We regret the inconvenience, and will have it restored as soon as possible. Thank you for reading.

There's a shocker for you. I can't believe a bunch of people on the internet can't have a rational discussion about this one such that the comments function of the story remains active. Shocked, I tell you. Just shocked.

*I didn't make that up. But I must ask: It dishonors your father? What, you think Mom's okay with it?

Community College, Will You Marry Me?

2008-11-19T10:31:00.000-05:00

A colleague sent me this article with the following comment:

I hope the data described below trouble you. they damned sure trouble me. yeh, I know, we’re trying and we’re doing better. that’s nice, but pathetic.

The issue is “student engagement” at community colleges. The question, I think that needs to be addressed but never is, is what is a realistic expectation for student engagement? Certainly we want all to be optimally engaged. Realistically, I think that's ridiculous. The data discussed in the article seems to fall into two categories: Engagement in the classroom and engagement out of the classroom. What the author says about engagement in the classroom confuses me:

“In the classroom, engagement figures were…still notably low. Twenty-eight percent said they had either “often” or “very often” made a class presentation, and 46 percent said they had either “often” or “very often” worked with other students on projects during class… These figures were higher for students at four-year institutions, according to this year’s NSSE report — 33 percent of first-year students had “often” or “very often” made a class presentation and 60 percent of seniors had done the same. Additionally, 43 percent of first-year students at four-year institutions had worked with other students on projects during class either “often” or “very often,” while 47 percent of their senior counterparts had done the same.”

I’m not especially confident that “making classroom presentations” and “working with other students on projects during class” are worthy measures of “student engagement” in the first place, but I can play along and pretend. Then the question becomes what comparisons should we make? If we’re going to compare CC students to 4-yr students, and if we’re given the option of comparison between first year students and seniors at 4-yr schools, (unless someone can present an argument otherwise) it sure seems wise that we compare CC students to first year students. So, yes, 33% making class presentations is a bit higher than only 28% - but not drastically higher (BRCC is at 22.2%). But, no, 43% is not higher than 46% - CC students are *more likely* than first year students at 4-yr schools to do group work in class (BRCC is at 44.8%). Given the data, it just does not seem to me that CC students are significantly (in a non-stats sense) less engaged in class that their 4-year counterparts.

Outside of the classroom, yes, there seems to be a big difference. 16% of CC students “reported that they discussed ideas with their professors outside of class.” (BRCC is at 10.7%). While it isn’t in the IHE article, I dug up that “nearly 2/3 of 1st year students…at least sometimes discussed ideas from readings or classes with faculty members outside of class” (page 11). Sure, that is a significant difference. But I’m simply not convinced it is realistic to expect similar “out of class” engagement numbers between CC and 4-year students. 62% of the subjects in the CC data are part-time. It never quite mentions the percentage in the 4-year data who are part-time, but it does indicate that at least some of the analyses are based only on full-time students (page 18). I think it unrealistic to expect that part-time students spend as much time out of class “engaged” with academics as full-time students.

I suspect also that a lot of the variability between CC's on "out of class" student engagement is a function of whether the school is commuter (like BRCC) or residential (with dorms, like those I worked at in Colorado & Arizona). It always seemed to me that students spend a lot more time just “hanging around campus” when they are (1) full-time, and (2) at a residential college (CC or 4-yr). More time “hanging around campus” likely corresponds with more time chatting with professors out of class. Realistic expectations should be different for this measure of "engagement" at different types of colleges.

Oddly, the IHE article doesn’t even mention any data on the two measures of “student engagement” that I think are really indicative of it: Student effort and academic challenge (anecdotal comments are made on academic challenge).

Ultimately, to get at my colleague's point: No the data don't trouble me much, nor do I think them sufficient to conclude that what we're doing is pathetic.

You sexy correlational bitch!*

2008-11-06T11:34:00.000-05:00

So it looks like teenagers who watch a lot of sexual themed TV are more likely to get pregnant. Let's see what the media says. First, here's the actual researchers:

The study found that frequent exposure to TV sexual content was associated with a significantly greater likelihood of teen pregnancy in the following three years.

This, obviously, is a simple correlation (with some other variables controlled, thus likely some variation of a partial or semi-partial, but still, simple correlation): As Variable 1 (amount of TV sexual content viewed) increases, Variable 2 (likelihood of pregnancy) also increases. Will the media describe the findings as correlational? Here's the NYT:

Shows that highlight only the positive aspects of sexual behavior without the risks can lead teens to have unprotected sex (emphasis mine)...

Ah yes, one of the most basic science errors (lies?): Variable 1 is correlated with Variable 2, thus Variable 2 leads to Variable 2. Damnit, man! Anyone who has ever taken a freshman level social science class knows correlation does not mean causation (although they may not know, as I didn't until just now, that this was called the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy)! How did NPR do?

Still, the authors say the study has limitations — that they can't rule out other factors that may influence the findings. For instance, it's possible that teens with advanced sexual attitudes are more likely to seek out more TV shows with sexual content.

Good job, NPR. There are plenty of other reasons why Variable 1 might be correlated with Variable 2 aside from Variable 1 causing Variable 2. This shouldn't be hard!
*The title is for you, Leslie.

“The outrage that the F.C.C. pretends to feel is false”

2008-11-03T14:42:00.000-05:00

I often use emotional responses to swearing as an example of Albert Ellis’s approach to mental health (he was, after all, “the first psychologist ever to say ‘fuck’ and ‘shit’ at the American Psychological Association conference”). Anyway, Ellis argues that our emotional responses are not about particular events (like swearing) but are a function of the way we interpret events (for example, I will respond differently to swear words if I decide to think differently about them). Yet again, the FCC is trying to decide if saying “fuck” and “shit” on live TV is always punishable, and thus, censorable (or vice versa). One judge says that even if Bono simply says that winning an award is “really, really fucking brilliant” it is still about sex!

(W)hatever the speaker’s intentions… “a substantial part of the community, and of the television audience, will understand the word as freighted with an offensive sexual connotation.”

But if that is the criteria for censorship, how long before people can no longer say “69” on television? I would guess that “a substantial part of the community, and of the television audience, will understand the word as freighted with an offensive sexual connotation.” But if I simply count, “67, 68, 69, 70” and you think simultaneous oral sex, I’m sorry, but you’re the pervert.

Mathematical masturbation over calculus porn will grow hair on your palms

2008-10-22T15:01:00.000-04:00

I'm not an economist, but I certainly feel this is how psychology works. The author, an economist, argues:

I am shocked at the behavior of my fellow economists during this (financial) crisis. They are claiming to know much more than they do about causes and solutions. Rather than trying to understand and explain what is going on, they are engaged in a fierce battle over narrative.

He suggests a flaw with economics is that it focuses more on math models than useful statistics and research, with the following point (worded just wonderfully):

the economics profession for the past thirty years (has) focused on producing stochastic calculus porn to satisfy young men's urge for mathematical masturbation.

I see a similar flaw in psychology. As much as I love statistics, a lot of psychology statistics do seem to be mathematical masturbation (which might be great if you're trying to finish a dissertation by wowing your committee with stats, but potentially not so great for really learning important things). More importantly, whenever there is a crisis where psychology expertise might be involved, we're brilliant at claiming to know more than we do about causes and solutions. The author's last sentence could easily apply to psychologists following any school shooting or terrorist attack:

(Psychologists) ought to admit that we do not know much about what is going on today...Of course, the market demand is for "strong" leaders and for "strong" (psychologists), who can fool the public into believing that they have great knowledge. The ones who do this best are those who have fooled themselves.

It's nice to be liked but it's better by far to get paid

2008-10-15T10:40:00.000-04:00

The psychology research discussed in this article is quite interesting. It addresses the urge to punish, and how such an urge might have evolutionary advantages.

The urge to take revenge or punish cheaters,” said Michael McCullough, a professor of psychology at the University of Miami and author of the book “Beyond Revenge: The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct,” “is not a disease or toxin or sign that something has gone wrong. From the point of view of evolution, it’s not a problem but a solution.

It also suggests that forgiveness might ultimately outweigh punishment as the basic human response to misbehavior.

“The forgiveness instinct is every bit as wired in as the revenge instinct,” he said. “It seems that our minds work very hard to get away from resentment, if we can.”

That's swell. My problem with the article, though, is that it purportedly is explaining why many Americans opposed the economic bailout (I'm sorry, I mean "rescue") plan.

The public urge for punishment that helped delay the passage of Washington’s economic rescue plan is more than a simple case of Wall Street loathing

There are two big flaws with this reasoning. The first is this: Many people, myself included, opposed the bailout (rescue) for reasons unrelated to punishment but instead related to basic economic principles. Basically, I feel a free market economic system works better than a government run system (unlike many with similar beliefs, I do not feel the government is malicious. I just feel it generally incompetent). The second flaw is more bizarre, and deals with the meaning of the word punishment. If failure to give somebody money is punishment, then I am constantly punishing people. Not only did I try to punish "Wall Street" last week by not giving them money, I also punished my nephew Joey, for I also failed to give him money. And unless you (whoever the hell you are) gave me money, you, by this reasoning, also punished me (you vindictive son of a bitch!). But that is ridiculous. "Giving money" is a reward. "Not giving money" is failure to reward. But it is not punishment. "Punishment" and "not rewarding" are not the same thing.

Title reference here.

I walked into his office, I felt so self-conscious on the couch.

2008-10-08T11:27:00.000-04:00

People can't keep up with their therapy due to the recession?

Across the country, psychiatrists and psychologists say they are seeing an increasing number of patients who are worried about paying for treatment. Some are reducing the amount of time they spend in therapy. Others are trying to negotiate a reduced fee. And, despite doctors' warnings that it can be detrimental, some patients are using tactics to make their medication last longer, such as taking half their dose.

Maybe it is for the best. It is not as though therapy is necessarily helpful. Seems it can even be harmful.

In fact, therapy can be harmful, with research showing that, on average, approximately 10 per cent of clients actually get worse after starting therapy.

Freud lives!

2008-10-01T14:37:00.000-04:00

But figuring out the underlying causes of my problems is just so much more difficult than swallowing a pill:

In a review of 23 studies of (psychoanalysis) involving 1,053 patients, the researchers concluded that the therapy, given as often as three times a week, in many cases for more than a year, relieved symptoms of ("some chronic mental problems, including anxiety and borderline personality disorder") significantly more than did some shorter-term therapies.

Mommmmmyyyyyy! He won't stay on his side of the car!

2008-09-30T12:16:00.001-04:00

A political post: The bailout has (for the time being) failed. According to this article,

House Republicans are pointing to remarks made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) shortly after noon today to explain why so many Republicans voted against the financial sector bailout bill.

Evidently, the remarks:

blast(ed) Bush administration economic policies for leading America into the present crisis

Am I to understand that House Republicans didn't vote for the bill because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings? These people would make excellent humanists...or modern college students.

I can't not choke on it

2008-09-30T11:36:00.000-04:00

This is an excellent article about "sex addiction" and simultaneously takes us through an interesting, anecdotal history of abnormal psychology. Early on it begins:

The modern notion that you can be "addicted" to sex, or to any behavior—like eating, shopping, gambling, or texting—has been in ascendance among scientists only for the past quarter-century.

It summarizes a history of changing theoretical viewpoints pretty well with:

(The modern take on addiction is that it is) a reversal of Freud's formulation from more than a century ago. We used to see drug abuse as a psychological problem—like compulsive masturbation. Now, with our advanced knowledge of the brain, we're starting to see compulsive masturbators as victims of a disease, like drug addicts.

And it addresses current controversies in the conclusion:

When it comes to compulsive sexual behavior, the professionals have their own ambivalence, which plays out as a question of semantics rather than aesthetics: The community argues over the inclusion of behavioral addictions—or even the word addiction itself—in the next version of the DSM. Some argue that the euphemistic use of dependence has done little to eliminate the stigma associated with the condition. Others see the medicalization of behavior—sexual or otherwise—as a form of social control.

We sickologists are a sneaky bunch

2008-09-25T12:18:00.000-04:00

Article: How to treat a "Money Disorder" - Actually, we're only talking about Fashionable & Stylish money disorders, similar to Fashionable & Stylish sex addiction and Fashionable & Stylish delusional psychosis, but all the same. Evidently there is a host of new "money disorders" we psychologists are treating:

overspending, underspending (a k a Depression mentality), serial borrowing, financial infidelity (“cheating” on a spouse by spending and lying about it), workaholism, financial incest (lording money over relatives to control them), financial enabling (throwing large sums at, say, adult children who then are not motivated to support themselves), hoarding, and plenty of guilt and shame around poverty and wealth.

How to treat it? Simple. Something called "Onsite"...

...is one of a number of programs and workshops devoted to problem money behaviors...It costs $2,650 and involves six days of group therapy and financial counseling.

Step 1: Medicalize the behavior. Step 2: Convince people you know how to cure it. Step 3: Sell the cure to people who are bad with money. Brilliant.

Am I a cocky son of a bitch?

2008-09-24T14:59:00.000-04:00

I've just set up a Facebook profile. After the umpteenth invitation to visit someone else's profile that I couldn't accept because I didn't have my own profile, I caved. Now I'm wondering if I'm a narcissist. Psychologists gave a personality inventory to Facebook users, then evaluated their Facebook profiles.

The researchers found that the number of Facebook friends and wallposts that individuals have on their profile pages correlates with narcissism...(and that)...Narcissists are also more likely to choose glamorous, self-promoting pictures for their main profile photos...while others are more likely to use snapshots.

So I'm assuming that narcissism was measured by their personality inventory. Then what the hell is going on with the following?

Untrained observers were able to detect narcissism, too. The researchers found that the observers used three characteristics – quantity of social interaction, attractiveness of the individual and the degree of self promotion in the main photo – to form an impression of the individual’s personality.

For that to be the case (if I'm understanding correctly), I think "attractiveness of the individual" must, by any statistical procedure, be correlated with the researchers' measure of narcissism. And if that's the case, I wonder if it is a flawed measure of narcissism. And (one last time) if that's the case, does any of their data matter?

Right now it’s too early to predict if or how the norms of online self-promotion will change...since the study of social networking sites is still in its infancy.

Boy oh boy - the study of social networking...glad to see we psychologists are helping to make the world a better place. Anyway, I've only got 8 friends...but is my picture self-promoting? Is it glamorous? What if I now go to my Facebook profile and where it says "What are you doing right now" I type: "Wondering if I am a narcissist"? Is a vicious narcissist cycle?

Send in the stupid fucking clowns

2008-09-22T14:46:00.000-04:00

How disappointing is it that being given factual information to counter misinformation can actually increase our beliefs in the misinformation?

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

I've already noted it is unwise (and uncool) to rig a study to make conservatives look stupid. And I recognize flaws in the fact that most researchers investigating these issues are "raging liberals." But the fact that all the researchers are democrats only matters if you can show where bias may have crept into the study. I suspect (though I don't know for sure) they used double-blind procedures to cover for that. Sad, I tell you. Just sad.

Don't you dare hurt my feelings, or I'll have you arrested

2008-09-17T14:46:00.000-04:00

Jonathan Haidt is one of my favorite working psychologists. He does fascinating research investigating how people make moral judgments. And I appreciate his attempts to:

...transcend the “culture wars” by using recent discoveries in moral psychology to foster more civil forms of politics.

Certainly, politics seems very uncivilized. As an homage again to the late DF Wallace, I'll quote him that:

(T)he likeliest reason why so many of us care so little about politics is that modern politicians make us sad, hurt us deep down in ways that are hard even to name, much less talk about...

But I have to express concern with some issues in this article. First, what a title: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? As if it is some illness. He even admits, granted in a self-disparaging fashion, to diagnosing the condition:

In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger.

I've already brought attention to the flaws of rigging a study to make conservatives look stupid, but now it seems "liberal academics" (my god, I'm turning into Bill O'Reilly) are trying to make them look mentally ill (disclaimer: I'm a libertarian academic). Still, my concerns are primarily different, and related in parts to previous criticisms I've made. Haidt notes that his research finds that republicans and democrats tend to view morality differently. Democrats view morality in an "academic" way such that questions of morality deal primarily with harm and fairness (immoral behavior is harmful and/or unfair). Republicans accept those domains (as Haidt calls them) but also consider morality from the perspectives of group loyalty, respect for authority, and sacredness. He describes it this way:

(T)he second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.

I've noted previously the importance (but failure on Haidt's part) of differentiating *how* people make moral judgments (moral psychology) and how people *should* make moral judgments (moral philosophy). He seems to make this oddly clear when he writes about how he came to the above judgments regarding the domains of morality:

For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed. Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified [the traditional academic] definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong.

I'm trying to think of another area of academic research where the following scenario would occur: Questions about that area are posed to different types of people. Educated people answer it one way while others answer it a different way. The conclusion is that the educated people are answering it incorrectly and everyone else is answering it correctly. I can't think of another area of academic research where that would occur, but it seems to be exactly what Haidt's doing here. Educated people view morality one way, others view it differently, so we should change the understanding of morality to more closely reflect the most common views. Again, let me be clear: If the claim is that we are simply *describing* how people make moral judgments, Haidt's descriptions of how most people make them are relevant. But if we're looking at how people *should* make moral judgments, it does not seem appropriate that majority should rule. Would we change our understanding of calculus because most people didn't answer questions relating to calculus the way educated people do? What about evolution? Surveys find:

Belief that God created humans in their present form decreases as education increases, ranging from 58% of those with high school education or less who believe in the biblical explanation to only 25% of those with postgraduate education.

Should we pose a "second rule" of human biological development that states:

(T)he second rule of biology is that human biological development is not just a function of evolution (as most liberals think); it is also about God creating people in their present form.

Wouldn't that be consistent with Haidt's reasoning on moral psychology? I suppose one could argue that morality is different than calculus and evolution. Haidt does that, suggesting that unlike areas where there are objective answers, morality is subjective, it "varies across cultures" and therefore "isn't it unfair to impose on all cultures a definition of morality drawn from the European Enlightenment tradition?" But I say he's wrong. His specific topic is morality and American politics. Because our democratic political system is based largely on a "morality drawn from the European Enlightenment tradition" we (at least try to) educate citizens to make political judgments based on that tradition. It seems appropriate, then, to educate people to make moral judgments on that tradition, also, as our political system is what it is because of its moral underpinnings. Haidt's data indicates that educating people to make such moral judgments works. Why not advocate for that rather than simply redefining morality as whatever regresses to the norm?

Finite Jest

2008-09-15T14:28:00.000-04:00

David Foster Wallace killed himself last Friday. I'd been considering a post about this article, another on morality from one of my favorite working psychologists - Jon Haidt at UVA. But I've been immersed in Foster Wallace obits and following links here and there. I've decided that, for the day, a better way to think closely about morality is for me to re-read this. So that's what I'm going to do.

So then here is a question that’s all but unavoidable at the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker, and may arise in kitchens across the U.S.: Is it all right to boil a sentient creature alive just for our gustatory pleasure? A related set of concerns: Is the previous question irksomely PC or sentimental? What does “all right” even mean in this context? Is it all just a matter of individual choice?

Fashionable & Stylish Sex Addiction

2008-09-11T15:03:00.000-04:00

I'm not going to say much about this article on sex addiction. It is titled "No sympathy for the Sex Addict" and includes the following:

A few mental health professionals still argue that sex addiction is not a real disease...Sex addiction is not listed as a disorder in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the bible of psychiatric disorders

Listen, I'm not suggesting that people who exhibit behaviors with easily predictable negative consequences deserve no sympathy/empathy/whatever, but if a mental disorder ain't in the DSM, there are way more than "a few mental health professionals" who don't think it is a real disease. What intrigues me most, again, is the placement of the article: the NYT "Fashion & Style" section. Fashionable & Stylish sex addiction?

I would, just for the heck of it, like to point out that I hate Chuck Palahniuk and find those who really dig him just adorable.

You say "tom-ay-to" I say "gateway drug"

2008-09-08T11:44:00.000-04:00

I think I've a bit of a problem with this article from the APA Psychport page. The article, titled "Prescription drugs a gateway for teen drug abuse: With many substances harder to find, study shows drop in illegal drug abuse," suggests that for many teenagers nonmedical use of prescription drugs is their first drug use. I've no problem with the data in support of that claim (which is available for free here). Indeed, the data show that, as the Psychport article accurately states:

About 2.5 million new teen substance abusers were initiated through prescription drugs. Next was marijuana, with 2.1 million new adolescent users.

My concern is the use of the term "gateway drug" in the Psychport article's title. I'm not sure that an "initiation drug" is quite the same as a "gateway drug." The original data source describes "initiation" as:

Information on substance use initiation, also known as incidence or first-time use...

In this sense, initiation deals with first-time drug use. If you google "gateway drug" though, you'll find the term isn't generally used to indicate first-time usage, but rather more commonly refers to the gateway drug theory, described by The Encyclopedia of Public Health as follows:

The "gateway drug theory" describes the phenomenon in which an introduction to drug-using behavior through the use of tobacco, alcohol, or marijuana is related to subsequent use of other illicit drugs.

The data, though, provide no evidence that nonmedical prescription drug use "is related to subsequent use of other illicit drugs." Appears to me that the use of the term gateway drug is inappropriate, then...although it might make for excellent drug law propaganda given that most people don't pay much attention.

All the unborn chicken voices in my head

2008-09-04T14:55:00.000-04:00

Check this out. People are having delusions about being in reality television shows. Or, alternatively, being in The Matrix. It really isn't that surprising. Psychotic folk commonly incorporate their beliefs into their delusions. I don't suspect you'll find a lot of atheist schizophrenics thinking God tells them to kill their children. But you will get plenty of Christians who do. This though,

"But the more radical view is that this pushes some people over the threshold; the environment tips them over the edge," said Dr. Joel Gold, who is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at New York University. "And if culture can make people crazy, then we need to look at it."

It is probably radical because it doesn't fit that well with common thinking about psychosis. Not that culture can't affect the content of delusions...but I'm unaware of much thinking that culture can result in delusions.

Last winter, my wife and her mother went on a Rock of Love marathon while we were visiting for Christmas. Sure, it almost sent me over the edge, but not such that I thought I was part of the show. But that's just me, and as dumb as I am, I'm not nearly dumb enough to be on that show. A professor of mine once told me of a hospital where he was working with three schizophrenic patients each thinking they were Jesus. I'll bet their conversations were much more interesting than the contestants on reality TV.

Here's the coolest part about the article - where the NYT editors decided to include it: the "Fashion & Style" section. I guess psychotic delusions about being in The Truman Show are fashionable and stylish, compared to those fuddy-duddy psychotic delusions about the government secretly monitoring your every action. No way would someone with a Truman Show delusion wear white after Labor Day. Way too fashionable and stylish them folk are.

Is it best that the gospel only be according to the lecturer?

2008-09-02T14:21:00.000-04:00

I teach two sections of "lecture" Intro Psychology and two sections of "online" Intro Psychology. Why should I ever lecture if students could simply read the book? That's the question posed in this blog post, Why Are We Here? (In A Big Lecture, That Is), by a UC Berkeley economist. He argues the history of the university lecture stems from back when books could not be easily copied, and thus it was more cost efficient for a lecturer to read to a group. Students would take notes, because they'd never ever see the book that was being read to them. Notes were required.

Nowadays, of course, people can buy and read books themselves, and any lecture notes can be provided. Students don't need to take notes, but do they even need a lecture, what with the book available and all? The authors poses four possible reasons for the continued existence of lectures, I think the most interesting being that lectures are:

A sociological event: East African Plains Apes like to do things in groups that involve language--that is just who we are--and the lecture is just another example of this

Though I hate to mix human origin metaphors, an interesting comparison is that between the university lecture and the church (or other religious building) sermon. In both cases, books can be bought - assigned textbook or (for example) bibles. Yet, in both cases, people seem to prefer the person in the front of the room talking about the book rather than they themselves reading the book. If indeed that comparison is at all accurate (and I'm not confident it is), it shines a potentially harsh light on both lecture and book reading. Consider that "Americans are among the world's most 'Bible-literate' people" while simultaneously "(t)he Christian body in America is immersed in a crisis of biblical illiteracy".

I wonder if that, periodically in both instances of the university lecture and the religious sermon, the lecturer would prefer the person not read the associated book at all, but only hear what the lecturer says. Now to mixing faiths, take for example the semi-recent declaration by Imam Muhammad Adam El-Sheikh, co-founder and chief cleric at the Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va. that "Beheadings are not mentioned in the Koran at all." That makes for a pretty decent lecture topic. But it doesn't quite mesh with the book the students might choose to read instead of attending lecture:

When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads. (The Koran, Sura 47, Verse 4)

Likely, different people learn better from different sources. Books for some, lectures for others, still other sources for others. Perhaps it is the lectures and the books that should be of interest, instead.

Walking Spanish Down the Hall

2008-09-01T10:36:00.000-04:00

This is an interesting story about "mentally ill" foster kids being shackled when brought to court for hearings not related to any crimes. It is difficult to determine quite what is going on, though. The author, for example, claims that in some states:

...children have a right to be free of shackles in court, lacking a specific danger.

...which seems right. But the story also quotes a spokesperson saying:

The fabric restraints are only used when a patient is determined to be a flight risk...

Can one be a flight risk without any specific danger of flight? It does seem strange to shackle kids just to bring them to court to discuss foster care. But it doesn't seem that odd to shackle 'em if there's evidence they may try to take off.

I'll betcha it ain't my fault

2008-08-27T10:35:00.000-04:00

I just couldn't let this one pass. I'd missed it this summer while I was on the Colorado River for 3 weeks: You remember that NBA ref, Tim Donaghy, who got in trouble for betting on games last year? Seems that in July, he was sentenced to 15 months in prison. He was expected to get 27 to 33 months, but his lawyer asked for leniency due to (yes, wait for it..) his gambling addiction. Comments made by gambling treatment expert Stephen Block in a sworn affidavit:

"In my professional opinion, Mr. Donaghy would have never committed these offenses if he was not a pathological gambler," "In short, he could not stop himself from gambling," "His gambling history demonstrates the need to gamble to fulfill the underlying need for 'action,'"

All right. I'm not saying there exists no behavior pattern that can be labeled "pathological gambling" or "gambling addiction" or "compulsive gambling" or the like. Nor am I suggesting that people who exhibit behaviors with easily predictable negative consequences deserve no sympathy/empathy/whatever. Maybe, just maybe, though, it is stories like this that result in "46 per cent of Canadians think(ing) people use the term mental illness as an excuse for bad behaviour." Canadian Medical Association president, Dr. Brian Day, says,

"In some ways, mental illness is the final frontier of socially acceptable discrimination. Can you imagine the public uproar if mental health was replaced with race, gender or religion?"

So, maybe Donaghy's judge didn't want to be called prejudiced so she reduced his sentence from the expected 27-33 months to 15 months. Somehow, though, those gambling addiction comments from Stephen Block seem inconsistent with the idea that mental illness is analogous to race, gender, or religion. The following sound awkward to me:

"In my professional opinion, Mr. Donaghy would have never committed these offenses if he was not white," "In short, he could not stop himself from having a Y-chromosome," "His Christian upbringing demonstrates the need to worship Jesus to fulfill the underlying need for 'action,'"

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun, but its sinking

2007-10-09T17:24:00.000-04:00

I'm taking another hiatus from the blog. I don't seem to be able to keep up well with classes I'm teaching and classes I'm taking. This is the first full-time teaching semester I'm also working on coursework for a master's in philosophy...and all of my writing time is devoted to finishing papers in those classes. No time for the blog this semester. Sorry. I'm just so sure you'll miss it. Title reference here.

Still too busy to get stuff done. I want to talk about it.

2007-10-02T07:54:00.001-04:00

Article: Talk Therapy Pivotal for Depressed Youth

A talking cure for depression called cognitive behavior therapy appears to cancel the risk of suicidal thinking or behavior associated with taking antidepressant medication, according to the most comprehensive and long-running study to date of depression treatment among adolescents.

Well, sure. But talk therapy is so much more darn difficult than medication! And insurance doesn't like to cover it. Darn.

I'm "blog-neutral" because I'm supporting another blog

2007-09-28T08:39:00.000-04:00

Offset away our guilt

If we can buy ‘carbon offsets’ for our environmental missteps, why not for our other sins?

My favorite:

The Pilates Offset. Spending more time in the gym might be the best way to combat America's growing obesity crisis, but if you can't make it, don't worry. A Pilates Offset purchased from a local gym would absolve you of any of the weighty responsibility for obesity in America. With the offset, you would be paying for other people to become physically fit. Their increased buffness would neutralize your expanding waistline, and you would be "fat neutral."

Slate.com is doing a series on Sex & Science (and culture)

2007-09-26T09:12:00.000-04:00

Sex and More Sex

Today and tomorrow, we'll publish a series of articles that examine the unavoidable presence of sex in science and culture.

I keep making these "To Do" lists but nothing gets crossed out

2007-09-25T10:56:00.000-04:00

I've been too swamped to comment on any of the following articles, all very interesting:

Shy on Drugs

It may seem baffling, even bizarre, that ordinary shyness could assume the dimension of a mental disease. But if a youngster is reserved, the odds are high that a psychiatrist will diagnose social anxiety disorder and recommend treatment.

Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?

Many explanations have been offered to make sense of the here-today-gone-tomorrow nature of medical wisdom — what we are advised with confidence one year is reversed the next — but the simplest one is that it is the natural rhythm of science. An observation leads to a hypothesis. The hypothesis (last year’s advice) is tested, and it fails this year’s test, which is always the most likely outcome in any scientific endeavor. There are, after all, an infinite number of wrong hypotheses for every right one, and so the odds are always against any particular hypothesis being true, no matter how obvious or vitally important it might seem.

This Is Your (Father’s) Brain on Drugs

A SPATE of news reports have breathlessly announced that science can explain why adults have such trouble dealing with teenagers: adolescents possess “immature,” “undeveloped” brains that drive them to risky, obnoxious, parent-vexing behaviors...We know the rest of the script: Commentators brand teenagers as stupid, crazy, reckless, immature, irrational and even alien, then advocate tough curbs on youthful freedoms...More responsible brain researchers...caution that scientists are just beginning to identify how systems in the brain work...Why, then, do many pundits and policy makers rush to denigrate adolescents as brainless? One troubling possibility: youths are being maligned to draw attention from the reality that it’s actually middle-aged adults — the parents — whose behavior has worsened...What experts label “adolescent risk taking” is really baby boomer risk taking. It’s true that 30 years ago, the riskiest age group for violent death was 15 to 24. But those same boomers continue to suffer high rates of addiction and other ills throughout middle age, while later generations of teenagers are better behaved. Today, the age group most at risk for violent death is 40 to 49, including illegal-drug death rates five times higher than for teenagers.

Title reference here.

In case of fire...

2007-09-21T08:27:00.001-04:00

I’ve just noticed that in the new building where my office is located, next to the elevator down the hall is a sign reading: “In case of fire, do not use elevators. Use stairs.” This is on the first floor of a two story building. The only place the stairs and elevators lead from the first floor is the second floor, where there are no exits. Can anyone imagine a circumstance where there’s a fire in the building, a person is on the first floor, and it would be in his or her best interest to use the stairs to go to the second floor with no exits? Shouldn’t the sign read: “In case of fire, use neither the stairs nor the elevators. Get the hell outside.”

To love, and to be loved...Let's just hope that is enough

2007-09-18T14:22:00.000-04:00

Article: Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written Into Our Genes?

Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being advocated by some biologists, that of evolution.

As an aside, its funny the author leads with "biologists" advocating the evolution of morality, given the entire article is based on work by a social psychologist at UVA. I'm a really big fan of that psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, but I think he's reasoning poorly with his current position, which he describes himself here. The argument that morality may be influenced by evolved mechanisms is a pretty common current position, and I'd guess most psychologists would agree with the claim. In his article he writes (and I agree with him):

(I)t seems to me that the zeitgeist in moral psychology has changed since 2001. Most people who study morality now read and write about emotions, the brain, chimpanzees, and evolution, as well as reasoning.

Where I fault Haidt is his refusal to differentiate clearly among (1) morality, (2) religion, and (3) social conventions. And I think part of that deals with not differentiating between moral psychology and moral philosophy. But when failing to do that, he fails his entire argument. Consider: He notes that people throughout the world make moral judgments that don't simply relate to harm and fairness. He says:

Most traditional societies care about a lot more than harm/care and fairness/justice. Why do so many societies care deeply and morally about menstruation, food taboos, sexuality, and respect for elders and the Gods? You can't just dismiss this stuff as social convention. If you want to describe human morality...you've got to include...that morality is in large part about binding people together.

He is correct that people care deeply and morally about such things, but he gives no reason why such respect can't be dismissed as social convention. He says it can't. Why not? It appears because he's not differentiating morality from social convention. But if that's the case, why argue there is such thing as morality at all? It appears morality, in his view, is anything people care deeply about. He notes food taboos. If "Don't eat shellfish!" (because, indeed, God Hates Shrimp) is anything besides a religious dictate and a social convention, I can't see it. Certainly, it can't be seen as a moral principle in any reasonable argument. Thus, of course, his point that morality can be described as he does is correct. But moral philosophy is not about just describing how people make moral judgments. It's about how people *should* make moral judgments. Don't eat shellfish? Come on. One thing he's doing in defining morality poorly, I think, is taking descriptive moral judgments and saying they constitute reasonable moral thinking because they "bind and build" relationships among people. This again blurs moral judgments from religious or social dictates. He includes in the "binding and building" judgments of morality:

It seems that the moral domain (is) also about...issues of loyalty to the group, respect for authority, and sacredness.

Again, I don't deny that, descriptively, many judge "respect for authority" as a moral virtue. That's why the Bible says children should obey their parents and slaves their masters. And, agreed, these things do "bind and build" loyalty to groups. But are they moral? No. It's just people confusing moral judgments with social norms or religious dictates. Respect for authority as moral? Dr. Haidt, you're a damn social psychologist. Tell Stanley Milgram respect for authority constitutes morality. So, what is Haidt's definition of morality? He says:

Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, practices, institutions, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible.

I'm not sure it is a good definition, again, because I don't see how it is different than certain social customs or relgious dictates that have the same goals of "regulat[ing] selfishness and mak[ing] social life possible." Even, though, if I accept that definition, I'm confused by his earlier statement that "menstruation, food taboos, sexuality, and respect for elders and the Gods" are moral concerns. I can see some instances: Sexuality to limit rape or procreate. Respect for elders because we're physically helpless as infants so "because I said so!" better work sometimes. But menstruation? Moral judgments about menstruation "regulate selfishness and make social life possible"? Really? And respect for Gods? That's not a religious or social custom? And, again, God Hates Shrimp. In the end, Haidt makes some odd political comments that are addressed well in the first article, and he ends up saying:

“It is at least possible that conservatives and traditional societies have some moral or sociological insights that secular liberals do not understand.”

Agreed. Just tell me whether we're talking about moral insights or sociological insights. And don't just describe whether the insights are common within a society. Tell me whether they constitute moral constructs. That's where we need to address the difference between moral psychology and moral philosophy. For example, moral psychology is useful in answering whether different cultures view obedience to authority as a moral virtue. But only moral philosophy can address whether obedience to authority is indeed a moral virtue. When Haidt talks about "morality" I can't tell which he's discussing. Until we differentiate these thing, I think the argument is useless. Title reference here.

I wish I could do it this well

2007-09-14T12:42:00.000-04:00

This is why I'm a part-time blogger, rather than a science journalist. I really like William Saletan, who does slate.com's "Human Nature" series. Here, he offers a near flawless critique (I say "near" not because I can spot flaws, but because perhaps others could) of a recent study that made the news rounds lately: Rigging a study to make conservatives look stupid. I wish I could do it that well.

Tell me about your manual

2007-09-13T11:10:00.000-04:00

This is an excellent op-ed article about the DSM (the "Bible" of mental disorders): Mind Over Manual

EARLIER this summer, the American Psychiatric Association announced that a 27-member panel will update its official diagnostic handbook, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The fifth edition, which is scheduled to come out in 2012, is likely to add new mental illnesses and refine some existing ones.

The author does, I think, a good job with both the strengths and the weaknesses of the DSM, and offers a nice recent history. She also notes the inherent problems with all diagnoses of mental disorders:

(T)here is a deeper problem: despite the great progress being made in neuroscience, we still don’t have a clear picture of the brain mechanisms underlying bipolar illness — or most other mental illnesses...Why aren’t we closer to understanding the relationship between manifest illness and its underlying causes? One obstacle is the staggering complexity of the brain.

Included, too, is some legitimate criticism of the checklist-approach to the DSM, ending with:

An updated manual, however, is unlikely to transform treatment substantially — after all, revising diagnoses is still just another way to describe mental conditions we don’t fully understand.

Granted there are few conditions that result in diagnoses that we fully understand, and thus in most cases diagnoses is "just another way to describe...conditions" of all sorts. Still, a nicely done article.
Disclaimer: I am a big fan of the the author's last book, One Nation Under Therapy: How the Helping Culture is Eroding Self-Reliance - as well as the co-author of that book, Christina Hoff Sommers.

Everyone's a little queer...can't he be a little autistic

2007-09-12T21:34:00.000-04:00

Let's say a wife gets pissy with her husband and says its because of hormones. How should the husband respond? How might his hormones affect him? I'll admit, I'm getting confused. First, we've this recent study about autism: Testosterone may be the key to autism - which argues:

New research shows that male hormones in the womb are linked to social and emotional skills in childhood

It discusses research supporting the claim that fetal testosterone level relates to characteristics of autism. They followed kids and found that those who were exposed to higher levels of testosterone in utero had more characteristics of autism (though none actually had autism):

(B)oys and girls who had higher levels of foetal testosterone were significantly more likely to have a large number of autistic traits.

The researcher's call it the "extreme male brain" hypothesis of autism, arguing that autism is about an intense interest in patterns (they call it systems) and lower social skills. They say the following:

The extreme male brain hypothesis (is that) girls tend to show better empathy and boys tend to have a stronger interest in systems. Children with autism seem to have an exaggerated version of typical male preferences. They have a strong interest in systems and have difficulty empathising.

This is where I get confused, because higher levels of fetal testosterone are recognized to affect other characteristics, too. They note that in utero testosterone is functional on birth order:

There is some evidence, for example, that mothers who have previously conceived several sons expose subsequent foetuses to higher levels of male hormones.

So, what is this related to? Homosexuality. This article notes, for example: Having older brothers a factor in boys becoming gay. All right, then, let's look at homosexuality and fetal hormone levels. This article (about finger length), notes:

(G)ay men did appear...to have been exposed to higher levels of fetal androgens...(The) findings point more toward gay men as hypermasculinized.

What's going on? It seems that higher levels of masculinizing hormones increase the probability of men being (1) hypermasculized, (2) gay, and (3) autistic-like less empathic. Can that be? The social stereotype is clearly that women like gay men because they're so in tune with their feminine side, which would seem to mean hyperfeminized (not hypermasculinized) and more empathic than normal men. Hell, there are books and books and books about it. Maybe it's time to admit we don't know dick about hormones and behavioral characteristics (although continued research is encouraged). Note, for fun, the first article's comment about correlations and third variable explanations:

Professor Baron-Cohen cautioned that the results do not prove that the link between male hormones and autistic traits is causal – both could be the result of something else

Title reference here.

Sex sells...to college students!

2007-09-11T11:24:00.000-04:00

Just a quick note on this article: Results of new study hard to swallow from JMU's student newspaper.

They didn't just pick a fine title for an article about the health effects of oral sex, but also a fine picture. The Chronicle of Higher Education would be proud. Anyway, a study suggested:

Those who engage in oral sex with more than six partners throughout their lifetime are up to nine times more likely to develop the cancer.

Standard statistical response:

Freshman (name withheld) agreed, adding that she didn’t understand the correlation between the number of oral sex partners a person has and throat cancer. She said that thought the number of times someone engaged in the act would be more of risk factor.

Really? College students who don't understand correlations? Ah, she probably understands them, just doesn't care. More commonly, adults who might understand the data, but feel it is irrelvent to them:

“I don’t think it will change anyone’s behavior,” she said. “It’s one of those statistics that you hear and forget about because it doesn’t affect your daily life.”

Just like them statistics about smoking and lung cancer. The nasty little statistics don't affect our lives.

Meet me at the bike racks and bring your lunch money!

2007-09-10T12:12:00.000-04:00

New study about the bullying problem: Psychometric Properties of the Peer Interactions in Primary School (PIPS) Questionnaire. This is a study testing the quality of a new instrument to measure bullying. The authors state:

“One problem (with previous research) is the lack of a psychometrically sound instrument for the measurement of bullying and victimization.”

The old surveys weren't any good, so they’ve created a new survey. Psychometric soundness refers to the instrument's reliability and validity. There are several ways to assess an instrument's characteristics, but, in general, reliability refers to the instrument's consistency (do people get consistent results if they take it more than once? do interpreters assess a subject's score in the same fashion?), while validity refers to the instrument's ability to measure the behavioral or mental construct it purports to measure. How do we know it’s valid (validity is the important part, because reliability is much easier to come by)? Simple:

“Significant Kruskal-Wallis tests of relationships between PIPS scales and items on the Olweus Bullying/Victimization Questionnaire and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire supported concurrent validity.”

What this means is this: They compared subjects' scores on the new instrument to scores on other instruments designed to measure the same construct (bullying). Subjects' scores on the instruments were similar. So, we know our new instrument overcomes the problem of a “lack of a psychometrically sound instrument” because our instrument relates well to all those other psychometrically unsound instruments. Go team.

It's wrestling's fault...until it's a wrestler!

2007-09-06T15:16:00.000-04:00

Article: Benoit's Brain Showed Severe Damage From Multiple Concussions, Doctor and Dad Say
An article discussing brain damage said to occur to the wrestler who killed his wife and kid this summer. I have great respect for neuroscience, and the things neuroscientists have found about the brain over the past few decades is truly amazing. That said, it's important to be critically skeptical of "brain imaging" comparisons. The article includes a picture comparing images of Benoit's brain to that of a "healthy" brain, and reads:

The tests...show that Benoit's brain was so severely damaged it resembled the brain of an 85-year-old Alzheimer's patient.

Certainly, there's debate about what can be determined by brain scans. This article, though, paints an interesting picture.

After almost 30 years, researchers have not developed any standardized tool for diagnosing or treating psychiatric disorders based on imaging studies.

Why the difficulty in using brain image comparisons?

(B)rains are as variable as personalities. (For example) ... researchers have found that people with schizophrenia suffer a progressive loss of their brain cells: a 20-year-old who develops the disorder, for example, might lose 5 percent to 10 percent of overall brain volume over the next decade, studies suggest. Ten percent is a lot, and losses of volume in the frontal lobes are associated with measurable impairment in schizophrenia, psychiatrists have found. But brain volume varies by at least 10 percent from person to person, so volume scans of patients by themselves cannot tell who is sick, the experts say. (emphasis mine)

The same reasoning based on brain variability applies to brain activity images, too. I know nothing of Benoit's brain, and when the doctor claims, "This is something you should never see in a 40-year-old" - referring to his brain characteristics, I have not reason to doubt his claim. Also, the doctors have an interesting theory, based on studying the brains of others who've suffered concussions and later killed themselves:

(They) theorize that repeated concussions can lead to dementia, which can contribute to severe behavioral problems.

So, I don't mean to be critical of the doctors. But most people will look at the brain images and feels there's a huge difference, when, in reality, unless one is well-trained in reading such images, and one has huge amounts of comparison data, the images shown in the news story mean nothing.

The Perils of Big Government!

2007-09-05T15:03:00.000-04:00

Article: BeliefWatch: Reincarnate

China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission.

How do you think they'll regulate that? IRS agent? Police?

Iowa? I could have sworn this was heaven.

2007-09-05T14:55:00.000-04:00

Original Research: National Trends in the Outpatient Diagnosis and Treatment of Bipolar Disorder in Youth

There has been a recent rapid increase in the diagnosis of youth bipolar disorder in office-based medical settings. This increase highlights a need for clinical epidemiological reliability studies to determine the accuracy of clinical diagnoses of child and adolescent bipolar disorder in community practice.

How rapid of an increase? Forty-fold. Wow. Of course, then, debates:

But the magnitude of the increase surprises many psychiatrists. They say it is likely to intensify the debate over the validity of the diagnosis, which has shaken child psychiatry.

Pro:

Some experts say greater awareness, reflected in the increasing diagnoses, is letting youngsters with the disorder obtain the treatment they need.

Con:

Other experts say bipolar disorder is overdiagnosed. The term, the critics say, has become a catchall applied to almost any explosive, aggressive child.

Perhaps the following, from the original research, can shed some light:

(M)ost youth (90.6%) and adults (86.4%) received a psychotropic medication during bipolar disorder visits, with comparable rates of mood stabilizers, antipsychotics, and antidepressants prescribed for both age groups.

If you build drugs, they will come. (Title Reference)

...an ominous educational reform initiative that, without naming it, would delegitimate the decisive, if spontaneous, disclosure of the complicity...

2007-09-04T20:57:00.001-04:00

This is kind of cool. This author, about whom I know nothing, is writing about how academic writing is so boring. He claims it is boring because it doesn't follow "the basic rule of decent writing." He decides to tell us what that rule is, and leads in this way:

And, indeed, it appears there is a basic rule, but, because I am, after all, an academic too, I must introduce it to you by means of a distinction.

That's seven (7) commas for twenty-nine (29) words. Wow. Maybe that the rule. Lots of commas. I don't know...maybe he's joking. But, I can't, even with effort, identify the, and it only might be potential, parody.
Title reference here.

What does "spiritual but not religious" mean, anyway?

2007-09-04T18:16:00.000-04:00

NPR had a program on today about "Positive Psychology" - a movement (if that's an accurate term) started in large part by Martin Seligman. I've always like Seligman. The NPR story, available through the link as audio only, leads like this:

Positive Psychology, a branch of psychology that focuses on positive human traits, is seen by proponents as an alternative to what they think is traditional psychology's preoccupation with negativity. Sounds harmless, but some people worry about the major financial backer of the movement, as well as the movement's spiritual aspects.

This intrigued me, because I hadn't really seen any strong criticisms of it. The story suggests a couple things that skeptics point to, which actually seem to be summarized in this article from the summer:

(One critic) has no problem with happiness per se. What irritates her is the notion that point of view is all that matters when it comes to changing the world around us – as if switching from the proverbial glass half empty to one that is half full, we could actually change the world.

All right, I guess I can understand that. But I can't necessarily see the problem with trying to get people to be more optimistic, as well as changing their behaviors. If phrased this way, it makes a bit more sense (note that one primary critic of the movement also works at Penn, the same university as Seligman):

James Coyne, a scientist at University of Pennsylvania who studies patient adaptation to chronic illness and treatment, recently disproved claims that an upbeat attitude slowed the progression of the disease. He believes the clinical insistence on a hopeful attitude and “the will to live” in cancer wards can often make sick patients feel worse. “People start to see it in terms of blame and if the cancer spreads it's somehow their fault.”

Still, I suspect in some sense that optimism is helpful. The second major criticism, noted in both the NPR story and the linked article, seems most odd to me:

But not everyone is happy about (a major source of funding) – (...) the John Templeton Foundation, an organization that has also donated more than $11-million to the study of “unlimited love,” “forgiveness” and “gratitude” – into the world of ideas.

The Templeton Foundation funds a ton of "spirituality research" and, for some reason, this seems to upset some critics. I just don't know why. Researchers have to get their money somewhere. It'd be one thing if the Templeton Foundation had a history of trying to bias research. But they specifically do not. Results from a study the foundation funded last year found that prayer had a negative effect on recovery from heart surgery. With very little doubt I say that this is not what the foundation wanted, but the study was published nonetheless.

So, why the concern with the source of funding, unless there is some reason to believe the source is biasing study results?

Oh, and this'll maybe bring me to my next post, about Tiki Barber.

Oh God, Post 2

2007-09-03T17:47:00.000-04:00

Article: Thinking About God Leads To Generosity, Study Suggests

Thoughts related to God cultivate cooperative behaviour and generosity, according to University of British Columbia psychology researchers.

It's quite interesting research, clearly describes the experimental and control groups, highlights random assignment, and the description of the commonly used "priming" process makes something often unclear pretty darn clear:

Priming is an experimental procedure used by cognitive and social scientists, mainly in psychology and economics, to obtain indicators of social tendencies by implicitly inducing relevant thoughts. As priming operates largely outside explicit awareness, subjects are unlikely to consciously revise their behaviours...groups were randomly assigned to the religious prime or to the control group. Participants in the religious prime group were given a word game and had to unscramble sentences (using spirit, divine, God, sacred and prophet). Those in the control group were given the same task with non-spiritual words.

The researchers are asking a cause-effect question, which requires experimentation:

This is a twist on an age old question -- does a belief in God influence moral behaviour?

Here's something that interests me. The researchers found that religious primes resulted in moral behavior, but found that secular primes of social justice and civic responsibility affected morality equally:

In the second study the researchers also investigated the strength of the religious prime relative to a secular prime. They used concepts of civic responsibility and social justice to prime subjects (with target words civic, jury, court, police and contract) and obtained almost identical results.

I wonder why the title of the article is all about God, and the results about secular primes are hidden within the article? Really, couldn't they have titled it, "Thinking About Civic Responsibility Leads to Generosity, Study Suggests"?

I talk trash to psyche 'em out!

2007-09-02T17:07:00.001-04:00

When I first started the PhD program at Florida State, I was in the sport psychology program. I left after one semester, but still find it interesting. Also, it seems to be one of the areas of psychology that others find intriguing. So, here's an interesting article about that:

Before Triathlon, Psychologists Calm Athletes’ Fears

Go Cardinals!

2007-08-30T19:38:00.000-04:00

A friend points out the following article from Pew Research: How the Public Resolves Conflicts Between Faith and Science The article attempts to address some conflicting survey results: First: Americans approve of science:

(M)ost people (87%) think that scientific developments make society better. Among those who describe themselves as being very religious, the same number – 87% – share that opinion.

Second: Most Americans do not accept evolution:

42% of Americans reject the notion that life on earth evolved and believe instead that humans and other living things have always existed in their present form...Moreover, in the same poll, 21% of those surveyed say that although life has evolved, these changes were guided by a supreme being. Only a minority, about a quarter (26%) of respondents, say that they accept evolution through natural processes or natural selection alone. (emphasis mine)

And third, most Americans acknowledge that scientists accept evolution:

(N)early two-thirds of adults (62%) say that they believe that scientists agree on the validity of evolution.

How does the author try to reconcile these apparently conflicting beliefs?

The answer is that much of the general public simply chooses not to believe the scientific theories and discoveries that seem to contradict long-held religious or other important beliefs.

He appears to be right. He notes that only 14% of those who don't accept evolution do so because of evidence. Most do so because of religious convictions.

(O)nly 14% of those who say they do not believe in evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.

All of this is well and good. People have a right to believe whatever they want, evidence be damned! As Stephen Colbert has noted, "The problem with evidence is that it doesn't always support your opinion." Still, are there any drawbacks to the fact that most Americans will ignore scientific evidence for faith? The author seems to think not:

These data once again show that, in the minds of most people in the United States, there is no real clash between science and religion. And when the two realms offer seemingly contradictory explanations (as in the case of evolution), religious people, who make up a majority of Americans, may rely primarily upon their faith for answers.

But he ignores a very important point he himself brought up. He starts the article by noting:

(R)eligious convictions limit many Americans' willingness to accept...certain types of scientific research, such as the potential use of embryonic stem cells for medical treatments.

Here's where I get pissy. Believe whatever you want for whatever reason, but don't use those beliefs to impact my life. If your beliefs are going to impact my life, you oughta have some evidence. My family has a history of Alzheimer's. Some scientists believe stem cell research can offer insight to a potential cure. But many can't do the research they'd like due to the faith of most Americans. (I understand that it's possible to be opposed to stem cell research based on evidence or political principles, but the argument is probably better that most who oppose it are opposed due to religion.)

Let me give an example describing why I'm pissy about this: If I start failing students because my faith in voodoo dolls tells me it is "true" that they cheated on their exams, those students deserve to be pissy and have every right to demand evidence. If I were to say I have "faith" that they cheated despite any evidence, they oughta tell me the same thing I want to tell people whose beliefs impact the ability of scientists to do stem cell research: Kiss Hank's Ass! Ultimately, I think the author lays out some interesting data. I'm just not as convinced as he seems to be that there's little conflict between science and religion in the US. Especially as it relates to evolution. Obscure title reference: Sister Martha Carpenter of St. Peter Indian Mission School told fans of the Arizona Cardinals on Wednesday, "God told me this year that the prayers are going to work."

The fireman's blind, the conductor's lame

2007-08-30T15:03:00.001-04:00

Article: Ex-Astronaut Will Plead Insanity

Captain Lisa M. Nowak, the former astronaut and naval officer who confronted a romantic rival at the Orlando airport in February, will plead insanity at her trial on assault and kidnapping charges, according to a notice filed on Tuesday in state circuit court in Orlando.

Her attorney says:

Even the most naive observer should recognize that Lisa Nowak’s behavior on Feb. 5 was uncharacteristic and unpredicted for such an accomplished person with no criminal record or history of violence

Well, sure. But does doing something out of character make you insane? Really? Oh, and they're bringing in the celebrity "She's insane!" guy.

A Houston psychiatrist, Richard Pesikoff, who provided a defense diagnosis in the case of Andrea Yates, a Houston mother who killed her children, is expected to testify on Captain Nowak’s behalf, the filing states.

Title reference here.

Once again...I choose Hopsicles!

2007-08-29T14:16:00.000-04:00

I just found out that Benjamin Libet, one of the most famous neuroscience researchers to investigate the question of free will, died last month. Sad. He was a free will stud. His most famous research study basically found a gap in time between our conscious awareness to perform an act and the brain activity associated with it. The brain activity comes first. For many, that research meant that free will is an illusion. But the guy who did the research disagreed. According to him:

(H)is experiments showed that if his subjects were told not to move a finger, or to stop moving it, their conscious will would maintain complete control - "could veto it and block performance of the act," as he described it.

Besides, recent research might suggest that fruit flies have free will. If they got it, you gotta think we got it. The study, from May 2007, involved placing fruit flies in containers with no stimuli to which to respond. The fruit flies, though, made left and right turns that, statistically, were not random. The flies’ behavior, then, was neither the result of their biological nature, nor responding to their environment. One of the researchers claimed:

We show free will ‘can’ exist, but we do not ‘prove’ it does…Our results eliminate two alternative explanations of this spontaneous turning behavior that would run counter to free will, namely randomness and pure determinism.

I guess it should be noted that this is the nature of all science. You don't 'prove' anything. You simply eliminate alternative (testable) explanations.

I still choose hopsicles

2007-08-28T11:33:00.000-04:00

These two articles address the same recent study by researchers investigating the relationship between happiness and freedom of choice..

"People's ability to be an agent, to act on behalf of what matters to them, is fundamental (to happiness)"

Let's play a game. You have to follow the links:
This is from the APA site: How happy are we? Danes are an 8.2, but Americans only a 7.4
This (same article, best I can tell) is from the USA today: Researchers: Choices spawn happiness
Let's forget the research for a second. Note the stock photo the USA today chose for the article. Is it me, or does it suggest that if a young guy has his choice among hot, mud-wrestling chicks in bikinis, he'd be happier? I don't think that really was the point of the research.
Anyway, here's a good article on how researchers study happiness.

Beer and a shot

2007-08-27T14:17:00.000-04:00

I'm all right with guns. Nothing against 'em. I really like venison. Used to have unlimited access in Colorado; Now I wish I knew someone I could pay to shoot me a deer. See, I'm all right with guns. I even know some students want guns on campus. We allow it at BRCC, with solid argumentation (state laws are such that we can't do anything to prevent non-students from having guns; seems unfair to prevent students but not visitors). That said, in the name of consistency, is it unreasonable to ask that the state regulate beer no more that it regulates guns? I want my hopsicles! Story goes like this - Some restaurant out near DC started serving frozen beer popsicles. But that goes against government regulations.

Special agent Philip Disharoon says the law requires beer to be served in its original container, or served immediately to a customer once it is poured from its original container.

So it's easier to get a gun at a gun show ("children under 12 are FREE") than it is frozen beer in a restaurant. Yea for Virginia!

I feel blue

2007-08-27T12:18:00.000-04:00

Follow-up on the "pink and blue" gender preference blog post from last week right here. They can cover it far better than I can, but I can at least say "I called it!"

It’s worth being critical and thoughtful about these stories, not because it’s fun to be mean: but because that’s what the authors would want, and also because stories about genes and culture are an important part of the stories we tell ourselves about who and what we are, our sense of personal responsibility, and the inevitability in our gender roles.

I left my chemically imbalanced brain in my locker

2007-08-26T18:51:00.000-04:00

Article: ADHD Ads Target Back-to-School Crowd

Parents shopping for pencils, book bags and new clothes for their kids may be tempted by recent advertisements to add yet another item to their back-to-school cart -- a prescription for an ADHD drug.

Although I can understand concerns about children and prescription drugs for psychological characteristics, the critics here seem somewhat off-base. Says one:

"This kind of ad is obviously not pushing for better teaching, better schools or more counseling, but it is pushing for the easy fix, the drug solution."

With all due respect...duh. Ads for McDonalds are not pushing for purchases from Burger King. The ad is pushing a product. That's what ads do.

On a related note, this is an interesting article about buying back to school clothes. Why do you need Ritalin if you're leaving your brain in your locker, anyway?

It is true because I say it is true. I say it is true because it is true.

2007-08-24T21:25:00.000-04:00

Article: Shedding Light on Shyness

In the study, eight male high school shooters, including the two students responsible for the attack at Columbine, were analyzed based on personal and social factors noted in newspapers and the FBI document titled "The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective."...The researchers examined 10 different characteristics of cynical shyness and found that the school shooters fit this profile.

So, it appears from the article (although I haven't seen the original study) to be the following:
(1) They found a bunch of characteristics common amongst high-school "shooters"
(2) Then, they compared high-school "shooters" to these characteristics
(3) Finally, they found that high-school "shooters" fit the characteristics...
...common amongst high-school "shooters"

Wow, that's fascinating. (Maybe I misunderstood? I suspect the researchers somehow developed the criteria of "cynical shyness" some other way. Would be nice if the article said what that was.)

Take ten paces, turn, and draw a picture

2007-08-23T14:42:00.000-04:00

Article: School Suspends Boy for Sketching Gun

MESA, Ariz. (AP) - School officials suspended a 13-year-old boy for sketching what looked like a gun, saying the action posed a threat to his classmates..(School) district spokesman Terry Locke said the crude sketch was "absolutely considered a threat," and that threatening words or pictures are punishable.

Keep in mind. We're not talking about "drawing" a gun from a holster. Nope. "Drawing" a gun on paper. If the kid had a sausage rather than a picture of a gun, they'da had to pry that sausage from his cold, dead hands.

A 12 year old British boy has been arrested and charged for throwing a two-inch long cocktail sausage at another person.

Medication, good. Functioning, bad.

2007-08-23T07:57:00.000-04:00

Article: Schizophrenia Drug for Youths

The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the drug Risperdal for treating schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in children and teenagers.

All well and good. Not sure if the following is a typo or not.

Bipolar disorder causes wide swings in mood, energy and ability to function.

Well, by all means. Let's try to eliminate the ability to function in children and teenagers.

Science is good, until you hurt me feelings

2007-08-22T14:21:00.000-04:00

Article: Criticism of a Gender Theory, and a Scientist Under Siege

In academic feuds, as in war, there is no telling how far people will go once the shooting starts. Earlier this month, members of the International Academy of Sex Research, gathering for their annual meeting in Vancouver, informally discussed one of the most contentious and personal social science controversies in recent memory.

This is a bit a doozy, and I followed it closely for a bit. It's interesting in two ways: First, academics are so damn petty. Second, though, when scientists disagree with other scientists, the debate, I'd hope, would be scientific. Politics shouldn't be involved. Indeed, when politicians get involved, scientists get all pissy (correctly).

When when the topic is sex, though, all that goes out the window. Here's the deal. Psychologist (Bailey) writes a book suggesting a pretty darn Freudian theory of transgendered individuals.

In his book, he argued that some people born male who want to cross genders are driven primarily by an erotic fascination with themselves as women.

This theory upsets some people. That's cool. That's what science is all about. Keeping throwing out your evidence, critique the evidence of others. But it got ugly.

“What happened to Bailey is important, because the harassment was so extraordinarily bad and because it could happen to any researcher in the field...If we’re going to have research at all, then we’re going to have people saying unpopular things, and if this is what happens to them, then we’ve got problems not only for science but free expression itself.”

In defense, one critic said:

“Nothing we have done...overstepped any boundaries of fair comment on a book and an author who stepped into the public arena with enthusiasm to deliver a false and unscientific and politically damaging opinion”

As I see it, there's the problem: If you can argue the theory is "false and unscientific" then do so. But whether it is "politically damaging" should be completely irrelevant.

Tell me about your mother's bomb

2007-08-21T13:47:00.000-04:00

They discussed it. And they decided APA psychologists can still participate in interrogations. They just can't be mean about it.

After a raucous debate about what role - if any - psychologists should play in U.S. government interrogations of terror suspects, the American Psychological Association voted overwhelmingly on Sunday to reject a measure that would have in effect banned its members from those interrogations.

I'm just guessing here, but I'll bet the primary difference of opinion exists between those psychologists who think of themselves as part of a "helping profession" (that is, helping people help themselves, rather than helping people torture others), and those who, likely for good reason, don't.

Random 'Human Sexuality' article

2007-08-20T21:34:00.000-04:00

Pet camel kills Australian woman
I have no comment. (thanks Joe)

Psychologists can indeed torture

2007-08-20T21:22:00.001-04:00

Study: Why girls prefer pink:

“This is the first study to pinpoint a robust sex difference in the red-green axis of human color vision,” says (a) co-author of the study. “And this preference has an evolutionary advantage behind it.”

It's the first week of the semester and I'm trying to get people to take psychology seriously. If this isn't torture, I don't know what is.

I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called "mister," thank you very much

2007-08-19T16:23:00.000-04:00

The first blog post of the semester will be short. The APA is again debating whether they approve of psychologists participating in interrogations of military prisoners. Thus far, the APA has approved. They're voting again this year. An interesting recent article addressing some of the prominent psychologists involved comes from Vanity Fair. Article link here. But the author sets out her agenda as follows:

I was attempting to explain why psychologists, alone among medical professionals, were participating in military interrogations at Guantánamo Bay and elsewhere.

And therein lies the rub (or whatever that nifty phrase is). Why would she think of psychologists as "medical professionals"? Why would her editor allow such terminology? Indeed, many psychologists are mental health professionals. But so are social workers, school counselors, and art therapists. Hell, I'm a psychologist and former APA member, but I ain't no stinking medical professional.
Rather than thinking of psychologists as "medical professionals" I offer the following: Professional manipulators. Sadly, that might make them perfect for military interrogations.

Thanks to you, I've quit blogging like Jesus

2007-04-25T11:00:00.000-04:00

I'm going on hiatus. I'd planned on taking the summer off of blogging, but that was to be a couple weeks away. Then the whiny ass mother fucker (WAMF) went on his rampage at Tech. Here in the valley, that hit home both figuratively and literally. I got angry. I hope a lot of people got angry. The hiatus stems from other anger, though. I immediately called out the fact everyone will use the event to confirm their existing beliefs. I didn't think I'd get so angry about that, though. But I did. Lots of anger. As I was waiting for Nancy Grace to blame the Duke LaCrosse team for the VT shooting (has that happened yet?), and for Jerry Falwell to blame the ACLU and lesbians (the "god hates fags" retards did, indeed, blame gays), I started about 10 different blog posts. I never finished because I became too angry. I started posts criticizing the anti-gun people; the pro-gun people, the violent media people; the anti-Thomas Szasz people; and the anti-feminist people; the anti-anti-God people (if only the US hadn't forsaken god!); and the people who never pointed out WAMF clearly, in part, was inspired by the Bible, name-checking Jesus as frequently as he did the Columbine shooters. Finally, I realized it was me at whom I was angry. Me. I wasn't any different. Each blog post I'd started was the same as everyone else's - I was just using the event to confirm my pre-existing beliefs. Damn, I hate that. So I'm going on hiatus. I'll be back in either July or August. I'll leave with this unrelated link:

Slate.com this week is doing a series on brain science. I suspect it'll be excellent.

I'm right and you're wrong!

2007-04-19T14:21:00.000-04:00

Quick post: I previously suggested looking out for the confirmation bias in response to the VT shootings, especially regarding gun control. This article, False Lessons from an Atrocity, articulates it better than I could:

It used to be that a shocking act of gun violence would invariably elicit a chorus of demands for tighter gun control laws. How things have changed. Now an episode like that invariably elicits a chorus of demands for tighter gun control laws and a chorus of demands for looser gun control laws. What the reactions demonstrate is that no matter what happens, people are very good at finding confirmation for what they already think. (emphasis mine)

Anyone want a cookie?

2007-04-18T08:50:00.000-04:00

Interesting first-person article and book review on eating disorders (Starved to Perfection). For the most part, I think it's well done. Provides some interesting statistics. Here's my one-liner. The book reviewed (Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters: The Frightening New Normalcy of Hating Your Body), evidently includes the the following quote to help explain the commonality of eating disorders:

“We are the daughters of feminists who said, ‘You can be anything,’ and we heard, ‘You have to be everything.’ ”

Perhaps, to an extent true. Childhood, parental relationships, etc. Yup, they all have an effect. But the article's author really shows her feminism at the end:

Over the course of the past three decades, men have been pursuing unnatural bulk and women exaggerated thinness, as if the world were such a small and symbiotic place that the weight they gain is the weight that we must lose, as if we need to minimize ourselves to make room for them.

I am a true feminist. I completely believe in equal rights for women. But a common criticism of some feminists is their need to explain all female "bad" behavior as somehow a function of men. Yeah, women have no choice but to have eating disorders because men are getting bigger. What we need is some man to come along and argue the opposite: We poor men are obligated to gain all that weight you malicious women are losing. What the hell. If all we gotta do is make shit up, with no supporting evidence, we can make it up to look like women are to blame, too.

Told ya so.

2007-04-17T09:41:00.000-04:00

Questions remain after worst U.S. shooting rampage. I'll bet they only remain on the surface. Pay attention. For many, many commentators, there will be no real questions. They'll know the answers. Watch for two themes: (1) The hindsight bias. Yup, it's really obvious now things should've been done differently. Certainly, it's okay to criticize how the situation was handled. But remember everything's 20/20 in hindsight. (2) The confirmation bias. Specifically on gun laws. Stance A: Gun laws need to change, so less people have guns. Then these things won't happen. Stance B: Gun laws need to change, so more people have guns. Then these things won't happen. Keep an eye out. The same, tired arguments won't be hard to find.

Waiting for you, my wife, my mate...My hard long shaft, deep in your fissure

2007-04-16T11:17:00.000-04:00

Abstinence education doesn't prevent teenagers from having sex? Gee, I always thought it would work. I always figured people had sex because their teachers hadn't told them otherwise. Conclusions Are Reported on Teaching of Abstinence reads:

Students who participated in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress...The federal government spends about $176 million a year promoting abstinence until marriage...Bush administration officials cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from the study...

So, money for the ineffective programs. Money to study the ineffective programs. Suggestion: Don't make any conclusions about the money we spend. Makes you feel good on tax day.

Title quote from poem on this page ("A long time coming"). From this page.

Let me count the ways

2007-04-14T11:39:00.000-04:00

Feeling a bit swamped lately, with what seems little time for blogging. Might go with some one-liners as the semester winds down and I try to keep the old noggin' above water. Here's the article, about sex difference in dating: How Don’t I Love Thee? Nothing all that revolutionary - study indicates: men are less picky, strongly influenced by looks. Women are more picky, strongly influenced by income. My favorite line regarding the ever-present self-serving bias - of roughly 20,000 subjects:

Fewer than 1 percent rated themselves as having “less than average looks.”

Sex is dirty. Save it for someone you love.

2007-04-11T15:38:00.001-04:00

Ah, the science of sex. Love it. Lust it. Whatever. Birds Do It. Bees Do It. People Seek the Keys to It. I swear I just said this in class yesterday:

An understanding (of sexual desire) could hardly come too soon. In an era when the rates of sexually transmitted diseases continue to climb; when schools and parent groups spar bitterly over curriculums for sex education classes; when the Food and Drug Administration angers both religious conservatives and women’s groups by approving the sale of the morning-after pill over the counter but then limiting those sales to women 18 years or older; and when deviations from the putative norm of monogamous heterosexuality are presented as threats to the social fabric — at such a time, scientists argue that the clear-eyed study of sexual desire and its consequences is vital to public health, public sanity, public comity.

'Course, we scientists start with defining our terms. More difficult than it appears:

“We throw around the term ‘sexual desire’ as though we’re all sure we’re talking about the same thing...But it’s clear from the research that people have very different operational definitions about what desire is.”

Overall, a great article reviewing the current status of sexology. What a word. Sexology.

Preparing for the judge by practicing on Mom & Dad: "Sorry. My brain made me do it!"

2007-04-10T10:46:00.000-04:00

Here's another newspaper psychology article making sure we all understand that's it is never, EVER, our fault. It's always our brain. Expert: Risky teen behavior is all in the brain. I'm all right, I suppose, with the argument that it's all in the brain, if that's the route you want to go. But if you go there, I'm not sure how you somehow separate the argument into teenagers and adults. Teens' behavior is a result of brain activity, but adults' behavior is not? Psychologist specializing in teens says:

"Kids will sign drug pledges. They really mean that, but when they get in a park on a Friday night with their friends, that pledge is nowhere to be found in their brain structure. They're missing the neurologic brakes that adults have."

Let's apply such an argument to different "risky" behavior undertaken by many an adult. Dennis follows the logic:

Adults will sign marriage contracts. They really mean that, but when they get in a bar on a Friday night without their spouses, that contract is nowhere to be found in the brain structure. Must be they're missing the neurologic brakes that other adults have.

What exactly is the position the article is taking? Teens' behavior is all in the brain. Then...what? Some time around 21 we all develop some metaphysical soul providing free will to overcome our brains?

Listen, I understand what the psychologists/researchers/neuroscientists are saying: The frontal cortex "connects" neurologically to the limbic system as we age, perhaps tempering the emotional "instincts" of the limbic system with some logic & reasoning regulatory functions. But is that what the title of the article is conveying? From this particular perspective, *ALL* risky behavior is in the brain.

Thowing it out with the bathwater

2007-04-09T14:06:00.000-04:00

You know how I'm always harping about having principles and applying them consistently, otherwise you're simply making random noises with your head? This articles provides an excellent analysis of a particular moral issue (stem cell research), and a critique of arguments not based on no moral principle (which are the crappiest of all moral arguments), but on an inconsistently applied moral principle. First, it identifies the common moral principle on which those opposing funding of stem cell research base their arguments:

(T)he unimplanted human embryo is already a human being, morally equivalent to a person

'Course, this isn't a scientific question - can't be tested to be right or wrong. So, for it to be used well in arguments, it needs to be applied consistently. The article notes several inconsistencies, but the most striking can be summarized as follows: If embryonic stem cell research is indeed tantamount to "the taking of innocent human life" (as President Bush has said), then it's the same as infanticide. And IF that, THEN...

If harvesting stem cells from a blastocyst were truly on a par with (infanticide), then the morally responsible policy would be to ban it, not merely deny it federal funding. If some doctors made a practice of killing children to get organs for transplantation, no one would take the position that the infanticide should be ineligible for federal funding but allowed to continue in the private sector. In fact, if we were persuaded that embryonic stem cell research were tantamount to infanticide, we would not only ban it but treat it as a grisly form of murder and subject scientists who performed it to criminal punishment

Whatever your position, the article serves as an excellent example of critiquing others' arguments in an intellectual fasion.

Oral sex & the lower drinking age - revistied

2007-04-06T12:09:00.000-04:00

A colleague of mine sent a "no way was that on The Chronicle" e-mail in response to a previous post. Here's the larger screenshot.