He Blinded Me With Stupidity

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

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?

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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!"

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

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..."

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...

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!

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

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"

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...

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.