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